Martin,

From the rest of the thread I can see how willing you are (NOT) to open
your mind to other ways of doing things. I see no point on insisting on
showing something that you only want to deny that exists.

Anyway, the fact that you see nothing wrong about having thousands of
tables speaks for itself...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

Martijn Tonies wrote:

>Paul,
>
>
>
>>You are missing the point.
>>
>>
>
>Oh yes, I might be very stubborn on the issue :-)
>
>
>
>>The issue is not storing but querying in an efficient way.
>>
>>
>
>Like what? XML does nothing that a relational DBMS can't do.
>
>
>
>>Don't think about relational data. XML is used to store structured and
>>
>>
>semi-structured data of a different nature.
>
>
>>Think about XPath or XQuery and then imagine querying your database for
>>
>>
>documents or document fragments holding a given XPath pattern.
>
>
>
>XPath/XQuery is nothing but patches to something that
>should be used for data exchange. Not storage.
>
>
>
>>If you are still clueless, you can then try to follow the xml-dev list for
>>
>>
>a while to get a feeling for it... but it is so hard to get some usefull
>information from all the purely academic-but-useless crap that goes around
>there...
>
>
>
>With regards,
>
>Martijn Tonies
>Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
>Server
>Upscene Productions
>http://www.upscene.com
>
>
>