Blogroll

Syndicate

February 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28        

New Blog

Subscribe w/Newsgator

  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Google Search


« PSP update adds audio goodies | CNET News.com | Main | PriceRitePhoto: Abusive Bait and Switch Camera Store »

Nov 30, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83420c2cc53ef00d83462d0f253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do we even need relational databases?:

Comments

Vinnie Mirchandani

SAP should have used your argument in 93-4. Back then Oracle put you on the defensive by sayiong you were not taking advanatge of native capabilities etc. There is too much corporate data in RDBMS to just walk away from them. A better question we should be asking is should we paying that much maintenance and DBA salaries/SI fees for Oracle, DB2 etc. We need to start thinking of them more as sunset technologies.

Rob

I wonder what Google uses for a database to track the necessary relationships that fuel their search and ad business? They are looking at innovative things for many things ... maybe how they use databases as well?

Tom Foydel

There is no question that the rdbms has added another layer of cost and maintenance to most business systems. Companies that look at new systems are surprised at the cost and the need for ongoing maintenance - another headcount, or two, in many cases. This is why on-demand computing is really taking off. On the other hand, for many new web services the stack still uses mysql. Don't you need something on the back end to manage relationships? Even a commodity dbms?

The comments to this entry are closed.