Paul Fuller wrote:
> Well yes - not as easily and only up to some file system imposed limit.

Sure.

> Whereas if I put the metadata into database fields or file attributes 
> then some validation is enforced by the field type.  There are well 
> supported concepts like sorting and searching.

Yep. And Windows at least does the indexing for you if you put the tags in 
the metadata of the file, letting you do searches and editing of metadata 
entirely within the tools that come with the system. (Which can be annoying 
sometimes if that's not what you're trying to search. :-)

> Since you bring up hierarchical databases, I note that the relational 
> model has pretty much won that debate.  Sure there are still examples of 
> H databases but I think you would agree that R is dominant today?  And 
> for the same reasons that I advocated the approach to Tim.

I wasn't trying to argue that he should use a non-relational database. I was 
  simply saying that (contrary to what some of the younger generation might 
know) relational databases are at the end of the evolutionary chain, not the 
start.

> Relational can't solve all problems but it is generally a closer 
> representation of the data, easier to manipulate, less redundancy, 
> better supported by tools ...

Yes to all that. I don't even know of any existing hierarchical databases 
*other* than UNIX-style file systems.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message