"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Relational database pioneer says technology is obsolete >> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=3DviewArticleBasic&articleId=3D9034619 > This bit is a hint: > "Column-oriented databases -- such as the one built by Stonebraker's > latest start-up, Andover, Mass.-based Vertica Systems Inc. -- store data > vertically in table columns rather than in successive rows." > Mr. Stonebraker's company sells column oriented databases. So of course > the other methods must be "obsolete". I don't see anything in there where Stonebraker says that relational DBs are obsolete. What he suggests is that column-oriented storage might beat row-oriented storage for a lot of modern applications. He might be right (I'm sure not going to bet against the guy who started Postgres) but this has not got anything to do with the concept of a relational database. It's an implementation detail --- maybe a pretty fundamental one, but in principle you could build a DB either way and no user could see a semantic difference. Count on a reporter to overstate the argument ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
