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. Keeping It Simple... by Prototerm · · Score: 0, Troll

    IMHO, databases would be much, much different today if IBM had extended the VSAM file type from the mainframe to the PC (for the uninitiated, think of a combination flat-file table with one built-in index). In my experience, the vast majority of database requirements of office workers are simple, so simple that even applications like Access are overkill. What do people use a database for? Scan through an entire table looking for one specific piece of data using only one key. VSAM files would be perfect!

    And things like the column-based database table (which strangely enough strikes me as an attempt by a spreadsheet user who naturally thinks sideways instead of down to create a sideways-oriented database) is even greater overkill.

    Besides, everyone knows that the database query users *really* want to run is: "SELECT * FROM *", and get upset when told they can't do it. That's another reason they prefer flat file databases to relational. It's easier to print the data out on fan-fold paper and do searches the old fashioned way.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  2. Re:Stonebraker's current track record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stonebraker is an academic. There are two categories of early DB pioneers. There were people
    like Jim Gray and C. Mohan who actually did the work and came up with useful (practical) algorithms.
    Then there are people like Date, Codd, and Stonebreaker who theorized a lot. The theory was
    useful (Codd's, at least), but much of it was quietly worked around to get a viable
    product developed. Even if (a) the article agreed with the summary, and (b) he didn't have
    financial interest in column stores, I wouldn't listen to his prophesies too seriously. I'd
    love to be proven wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time.