Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Relational Databases Obsolete?

Posted by kdawson on from the long-in-the-tooth dept.

jpkunst sends us to Computerworld for a look at Michael Stonebraker's opinion that RDBMSs "should be considered legacy technology." Computerworld adds some background and analysis to Stonebraker's comments, which appear in a new blog, The Database Column. Stonebraker co-created the Ingres and Postgres technology while a researcher at UC Berkeley in the early 1970s. He predicts that "column stores will take over the [data] warehouse market over time, completely displacing row stores."

2 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, but look at all the publicity by Colin+Smith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Vertica's getting a load of it free.

    Hey, you never know, some good may come of it. Maybe some of the "Nobody ever got fired for buying Oracle/SQL Server/DB2" people will have to explain why they're using inappropriate technology.

    --
    Deleted
  2. Stonebraker is wrong by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    This sort of crap was dug up when "object-oriented databases" were invented,

    Every little while somebody who doesn't even understand relational theory suggests that relational databases aren't "necessary", "efficient", "legacy", or some other crap.

    Here are the facts: short of some sort of AI conceptual processing being developed, relational databases are the ONLY known method to CORRECTLY reflect the realities of modeling the real world as data (and even then there are problems.)

    Go talk to C. J. Date or Fabian Pascal - they'll set you straight on that nonsense.

    Go to the Database Debunkings site and learn something.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!