From: | Gregor Zeitlinger <zeitling(at)informatik(dot)hu-berlin(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: is GiST still alive? |
Date: | 2003-10-23 11:03:17 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0310231254210.28617-100000@mitte.informatik.hu-berlin.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-chat pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:
> No, "tables" wouldn't be the right way to do it.
>
> But it's going to be troubled, in any case, because of the
> every-popular mixtures of:
>
> a) Often weird declarations of what character sets are in use;
I gotta admit that I haven't spend too much attention on that specific
part. But couln't you just store it in the character set that was
originally used to populate the document?
> b) Pointers to other parts of a document;
do you mean to the parent element and the child elements?
This is specifially what my custom format is designed for.
> c) What's a "database" going to consist of? One XML document? Or
> many?
many, each of which can be up to about 1TB
> And if many, then then how do you have a centralized
> reference point to navigate from to find the document that you
> want?
This one could be a table, or another xml document.
> And "navigate" was a carefully chosen word; what you then have is
> essentially a network database system, and have to then start making
> up ways of describing queries. XQuery may be better than CODASYL of
> yesteryear, but you're still left writing a lot of recursive code.
> (Thus making those that understand the Lambda Nature more powerful...)
I don't get your point? XQuery works on one document, IIRC.
> At the end, do you have a "database?" Or just a set of documents?
> It's hard to tell, a priori.
OK, know waht you mean. I'd say it's a database, because the information
is stored not plain - but in pages and in an optimized format for
insertion, deletion and querying.
> And do you think this is likely to be useful because:
>
> a) You have some clear notion as to why this ought to be useful?
yes. Modyfing and querying plain xml files sucks performancewise once your
documents get a little larger (100 MB+)
> b) XML is a big buzzword, and people have been able to succesfully
> attract "research funds" or "vulture capital" on the basis of
> having that acronym in a proposal?
That time's over anyways, isn't it?
--
Gregor Zeitlinger
gregor(at)zeitlinger(dot)de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregor Zeitlinger | 2003-10-23 11:06:03 | Re: is GiST still alive? |
Previous Message | Kurt at DBC | 2003-10-23 03:37:24 | Re: [HACKERS] is GiST still alive? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregor Zeitlinger | 2003-10-23 11:06:03 | Re: is GiST still alive? |
Previous Message | Michael Brusser | 2003-10-23 11:02:26 | Re: 7.4 compatibility question |