ORDBMS (Was: Re: OIDS (Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns))

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:

> > This past summer this sort of idea was discussed around these parts and
> > most of us came to the conclusion that a) OODBs are a pipe-dream at this
> > point in time,
>
> What does that mean?

Not sure, I missed that conversation ...

> > If we wanna become an OODBs we might as well say that now so we can start
> > by dropping SQL and the optimizer and the storage manager -- okay, I'm
> > being sarcastic (about OODBs).
>
> The big hope I see for postgresql is to someday be a true combination of
> ODBMS and RDBMS. Current commercial ODBMSes suck because their querying
> sucks. Current commercial (O)RDBMS suck because their object features
> really suck. There is no fundamental reason that this must be so.

I've asked this one before, I believe, some ppl have referred to us as
already being ORDBMS "material", but am not quite sure what that means in
our case ... how "ORDBMS" are we, and what is required to extend that?

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org