Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You mean like the way SQL is more scalable *because* you can't process 
> the next row depending on what the previous one was?

Basically, yes. In order for SQL to maintain the consistency guarantees, it 
has to have access to all the data. If you don't want duplicate primary 
keys, at some point, your primary keys have to all be on the same computer. 
If you have 5 TB of primary key information in one table, you have trouble.

You already use an OODB every day. You store your web pages on it. It's 
called a file system.  You can't do complex searches. You can't find all 
your Word documents that refer to a particular piece of lab equipment, for 
example, without actually reading all the Word documents. But it *does* let 
you store both programs and documents in the same system, for example.

(OK, it's not quite OO, but it's not relational, which is my point.)

> Of course, trouble is, almost all Haskell libraries that involve C fail 
> to compile on Windoze. (I'm told it's because Windows lacks a "standard" 
> place to put header files, etc.)

Uh, well, it means there might be more than one compiler. :-) I thought the 
idea was to use compiler switches for that. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message