Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[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:
> 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