On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"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Relational database pioneer says technology is obsolete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.
I'm curious, given that Postgres wasn't even an SQL-centric database
when the original project ended, how much of the current Postgres
code base still contains code from the original project before the
incorporation of SQl rename to PostgreSQL?
Erik Jones
Software Developer | Emma®
erik@xxxxxxxxxx
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
