Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Full Text Search |
---|---|
Author | Jim Starkey |
Post date | 2005-02-08T03:11:50Z |
Roman Rokytskyy wrote:
DEC that blobs should be part of the DEC Standard Relational Interface
(DSRI). The arguments against blobs were:
1. No customer had ever asked for a blob.
2. No sales had even been lost because a DEC database didn't support
blobs
3. No competiting product had blobs
4. Blobs were unnecessary because it was sufficient to store a file
name in a fixed length field.
5. If somebody really wanted to store a document in a database, they
normalize it and retrieve the document between documents and lines
ordered by line number.
My conclusion was that I was trapped in a branch of the Flat Earth
Society, and that the earliest possible escape was necessary. Hence,
Interbase.
Why does this seem like an echo of that reasoning?
> We had a discussion on this topic approx.Roman, much of my last year at DEC was consumed with trying to convince
>one year ago and concluded that Google-like scoring has no use in
>RDBMSes (at least that' my opinion from that discussion) since
>information has completely different nature.
>
>
>
DEC that blobs should be part of the DEC Standard Relational Interface
(DSRI). The arguments against blobs were:
1. No customer had ever asked for a blob.
2. No sales had even been lost because a DEC database didn't support
blobs
3. No competiting product had blobs
4. Blobs were unnecessary because it was sufficient to store a file
name in a fixed length field.
5. If somebody really wanted to store a document in a database, they
normalize it and retrieve the document between documents and lines
ordered by line number.
My conclusion was that I was trapped in a branch of the Flat Earth
Society, and that the earliest possible escape was necessary. Hence,
Interbase.
Why does this seem like an echo of that reasoning?