Houghton,Andrew schrieb:
>
>
> I also pointed out, without detail, that the trivial data normalization
> I applied might not be the best relational database architecture. Simply
> it will not scale. This doesn't mean, as you suggest, that a relational
> database is an inappropriate standard to use. For example, OCLC's WorldCat
> uses the Oracle relational database which comprises 60+ million records.
> Proper database architecture can go a long way...
>
But do you know how much of its inner workings are RDB and how much is
proprietary code piled on top of it?
The Pica software, dominant in Europe, also uses an RDBS, but not
for searching. It just uses the engine for storing records as long
strings, no attempt at tabulation of bib data. All manipulation is done
by non-SQL code, and for searching, there is some extra software
altogether. So in that case, to say they are using SQL doesn't mean a
lot.
It needs to be made clear, IOW, for what kind of tasks SQL is to
be preferred and for which it is inappropriate. As you indicate,
some operations just won't scale, most notably joins.
It needs to be shown, in yet other words, for what tasks we may
not now find appropriate standard software or off-the-shelf tools.
Regards, B. Eversberg
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 09:40:28 EDT