-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/06/07 22:54, 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 Relational database pioneer says technology is obsolete 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 Does "column-oriented storage" mean that all of the COLUMN_A values for all 200 million rows are stored together on adjacent pages? If so, then doing aggregates (the bread and butter of DW) *would* seem to be faster. But b-tree leaf that points to "a record" would need num_cols pointers instead of one pointer. Very messy. And large. Definitely a niche product. > 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. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG4OF4S9HxQb37XmcRAtQeAKCGqjOcdmT6ccrbMy/JDOURjYItSACfVu7/ AEdP1gbDPK/MNwCVlCb1IAg= =PD28 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
