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

[REBOL] Re: dbms3.r

From: mike:yaunish:home at: 14-Jan-2002 8:16

At 07:42 PM 13/01/02 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello Petr! > >On 13-Gen-02, you wrote: > > PK> - next Rebol update should also introduce > PK> new port type, with ability to perform seek upon direct > PK> opened port, maybe you would want to wait for this one? > >I've been waiting, but now I need it so I'll go with it and >improve in the future. > > PK> The problem with native Rebol dbms is - robustness and > PK> stability - locking, several processes working with one db at > >That's not my goal. I'll use MySQL when I'll need these features; >but if I'm writing something like an address book, but complicated >enough to require a relational db, I want to use something like >dbms.r. > > PK> library, so really small, available currently for many > >Really small? Compared to dbms.r? ;-) > > PK> platforms. Maybe we could adopt that one? It features the > PK> same interface as full mySQL version ... > >Too much complexity. Let's stay simple! > > PK> PS: of course I don't want you to leave your current thoughts > PK> and work, just a suggestion to look at external solution not > PK> necessarily reinventing the wheel ... > >I still think a small REBOL dbms can be useful. I've been using >MySQL a lot, and I'm not going to abandon it... but it's not >always the best solution IMHO.
I would agree. I have used both dbms.r and MySQL with REBOL and have been fairly disappointed with the slow performance of MySQL. If you need a small database with single user, very fast access then dbms.r is the way to go. As time goes by I am sure we will get a clearer idea where each database system does best. After seeing the performance of MySQL I am keen to see how far (read how big) dbms.r can take me.