Robert,
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 7:19 am, Robert Barta wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:05:37PM +0000, Michael Chapman wrote:
> > The down-side is that if relational databases could (easily) do,
> > what TMs can do we wouldn't be here.
> Here my theory is that in principle you can do EVERYTHING with
> relational databases,
Thought, even, but have no source, that this was proven 'fact' as regards TMs
and RDs
> But, do I really want that? Does it allow me to model (so constrain)
> the data in a way which corresponds to the structure of the data?
> And, if I do, will the database not be killed by the gazillions of
> joins it would have to do for every request?
Yes I think you are saying more eloquently what I rather badly expressed in
"if relational databases could (easily) do ..." ...
Thanks though for the promise to publish new/revised Perl packages. That
would be great.
As you say, Robert, "We are all stuck without a QL" and for that reason I
think this debate is most valuable. I found the following two earlier
statements each very persuasive:
Lars: (31 Jan 2005 14:17)
" I'm not sure switching to TMRQL at this point would speed [the creation of
standardised means of querying] up in any way."
Kal: (31 Jan 2005 20:23)
"You have a good decade of software development to look forward to then
:-)" [If one tries bespoke rather than off the shelf, such as say RD-SQL.]
I, for one, certainly do not wish to delay the release of a standard (or at
least its draft) by 'chatter'. I do though feel we are touching on important
issues here.
Regards,
Michael.
|
