Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Yea, it's all the same. (Score 2, Informative) 417

by c.gerritsen (#20501075) Attached to: Are Relational Databases Obsolete?

Actually, Stonebraker did say, and I quote the original article that you went back and read (with a dereferenced pronoun in []),

[The current major relational DBMSs] should be considered legacy technology, more than a quarter of century in age and "long in the tooth".

He called the existing major RDBMSs legacy and long in the tooth for not implementing the feature he is trumpeting, column storage, as an option when setting up a DB for use. He laments the fact that these vendors don't give you the option of setting up your DB in a way that provides huge performance gains for some usages that are becoming more common everyday, and says that there will be a revolution.

He is not saying that we don't still need row-oriented RDBMSs...which makes me wonder, does Vertica support both row and column stores?

Nothing succeeds like success. -- Alexandre Dumas

Working...