<< I wouldn't buy a business critical application which doesn't have a
properly designed database with reliability, validity and integrity in
mind.>>
Good stance. You wouldn't want to tell a bunch of longshoremen that their
checks will be delayed for a day while the database is being rebuilt. It
would not be a pretty sight.
Paul Nelson
Office 512-392-2577
Cell 708-670-6978
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Beeler
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 1:52 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: The Anti-SQL Movement
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 23:24, Jon Paris<jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey - those of us who have been saying for years that "SQL for
everything" doesn't make sense are no longer crying alone!
This is mostly about an alternative to RDBMS, with system that have no
needs for reliability. For example, if a facebook status message is
lost, this isn't much of an issue - as long as most of their storage
stays intact.
Most users of the IBM i platform run business apps on it, not Web2.0
apps - and business apps have fairly stringent reliability
requirements, as far as i know. And this is where an RDBMS can enforce
consistency of data, validity of data, transactional integrity, etc. -
all things that a simple key-value store doesn't have.
It all depends on what you want to achieve - and then choosing the
correct tool. I wouldn't buy a business critical application which
doesn't have a properly designed database with reliability, validity
and integrity in mind.
midrange.com
