[REBOL] Re: dbms3.r
From: mike:yaunish:home at: 14-Jan-2002 8:16
At 07:42 PM 13/01/02 +0200, you wrote:
>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
> 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
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.