[REBOL] Re: KDB was {Re: Re: dbms3.r 0}
From: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 15-Jan-2002 14:36
Hi Rod
> Thanks for the links!
>
> I'm always looking for new DB technologies. :-)
Good.. Then you might appreciate this gem I found browsing through the Kdb
list archives last night:
<quote>
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Moutchkine" <[muchandr--CSUA--Berkeley--EDU]>
To: <[kdb--listbox--com]>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: http://www.kx.com/products/index.html
> The nihilistic
> tendencies notwithstanding, K and kdb are actually ueber-OO in this
> respect - they are all about re-applying the powerful aggregation trick
> over and over across all granularity levels of your data while exploiting
> all that homogeny present at each level.
right, right. i haven't seen it put this way before, and i think
it captures what's going on.
> Your typical relational database
> doesn't fare so well. In a typical translation between the language of
> application's objects into database's rows a lot of information gets lost.
> I don't think you often find yourself in a situation where you deal with
> completely unrelated database rows because this is what you really want to
> do, but rather because that's all you get in proverbial hammer the tool /
> nail the problem pattern. A proper kdb-fication of that code will probably
> reveal that those rows aren't so 'random' after all :) I also suspect that
> the more random the data, the less need there tends to be in persistent
> storage thereof :)
this is a good insight. thanks.
</quote>
./Jason