> But that is not what I was talking about either. I was talking about
> the relational model as the basis for storage, not a database
> design.
> ...
> Do note that "performance" has nothing to do with "relation model"
> as the basis for data storage.
>
> Nor does "OODBMS" have anything to do with performance, but
> rather with "API" or "interface". Or at least, it should ;-)

Stop-stop-stop. You want to decompose an XML into pieces, execute a
query on that pieces with SQL and then combine that pieces back to the
original XML? You want to use relational database as a storage, burn
your CPU and IO cycles, build an API that tries to resolve that
impendance mismatch only because you want to have relational data store?

> I am open to suggestions, I'm just not easily convinced :-)

There is no point to try to convince you if performance means nothing
for you. Just at some point you will be beaten by some more
open-minded company/person when struggling for an important contract.
And there will be no buzzwords used, but just plain API and
performance measurments.

Roman