"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
>> Relational database pioneer says technology is obsolete
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=3DviewArticleBasic&articleId=3D9034619
> This bit is a hint:
> "Column-oriented databases -- such as the one built by Stonebraker's
> latest start-up, Andover, Mass.-based Vertica Systems Inc. -- store data
> vertically in table columns rather than in successive rows."
> Mr. Stonebraker's company sells column oriented databases. So of course
> the other methods must be "obsolete".
I don't see anything in there where Stonebraker says that relational DBs
are obsolete. What he suggests is that column-oriented storage might
beat row-oriented storage for a lot of modern applications. He might be
right (I'm sure not going to bet against the guy who started Postgres)
but this has not got anything to do with the concept of a relational
database. It's an implementation detail --- maybe a pretty fundamental
one, but in principle you could build a DB either way and no user could
see a semantic difference.
Count on a reporter to overstate the argument ...
regards, tom lane
