> You are wrong.
>
> Some OODBMSes are very well optimized to store hierarchical data (and
> often quite shity dealing with relational access).
>
> Hint: it is possible to retrieve hierarchical data (e.g.: a tree of
> objects depending from a given object) from an OODBMS without using an
> index (a b-tree) or performing a table scan.

This has nothing to do with the "relational model" as the basis for data
storage. That is what I am talking about.

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com

> Regards,
> Paulo Gaspar
>
> Martijn Tonies wrote:
>
> >>Yes, there are quite a few niche cases where data storage is better
> >>handled by Object (hierarchical) Databases than by relational ones.
> >>OODBs perform much better storing and retrieving large numbers of small
> >>objects organized in a hierarchical way.
> >>
> >>The reason they (OODBs) are not more popular has to do with the fact
> >>that these use cases are not very frequent and NOT with the fact that
> >>such use cases just do not exist.
> >>
> >>
> >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 ;-)
> >
> >With regards,
> >
> >Martijn Tonies
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>