Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Extended RDB vs OODB Message-ID:Date: 17 Aug 89 00:32:58 GMT References: <3560052@wdl1.UUCP> <408@odi.ODI.COM> <3324@rtech.rtech.com> <1989Aug11.143036.24703@odi.com> <1765@ethz.UUCP> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 23 In-reply-to: marti@ethz.UUCP's message of 15 Aug 89 07:31:50 GMT >With respect to the ongoing debate concerning OODBs vs extended RDBs, >I'd like to see proof (make that circumstatial evidence, if you prefer) >that an OODB which supports traditional basic DBMS features [is] > [better than a relational system] > The one flaw in this request is that proof of concept can't be provided if the concept hasn't been defined. I agree with Jon Krueger in that there is too much hand-waving in this discussion ("our system is better than yours") without defining the problem that is trying to be met. 1. Relational DBs provide things necessary for a multi-user world (concurrency control, security, etc.) that may or may not be needed in the object oriented world (perhaps only a specific area [CAD/CASE]). 2. Object DBs provide things necessary in a single-user world (extreme speed) that may or may not be needed in the relational world. Thus the need for cached objects. 3. What is the crossover point between the models? Object-oriented methodologies include relational methodologies? Or is it vice versa? David Masterson uunet!cimshop!davidm