In response to Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Where else do they want to store relational data than in a RDBMS? > > > > Indeed. It seems like we can hardly answer the OP's question without > > asking "compared to what?" If they're afraid an RDBMS won't scale, > > what have they got in mind that they are so certain will scale? > > I suspect they're misapplying the lesson Google taught everyone. Namely that > domain-specific solutions can provide much better performance than > general-purpose software. > > Google might not use an RDBMS to store their search index (which doesn't need > any of the ACID guarantees and needs all kinds of parallelism and lossy > alorithms which SQL and RDBMSes in general don't excel at), but on the other > hand I would be quite surprised if they stored their Adsense or other more > normal use data structures in anything but a bog-standard SQL database.
Google also has enough high-calibre people that they can probably re-invent the concept of an RDBMS if they want to. Yet they don't. I know a particular Googleite who's a PostgreSQL buff and is bummed that they use MySQL all over the place. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
