RE: Death of the database
- From: "Gogala, Mladen" <MGogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'jkstill@xxxxxxxxx'" <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>, Oracle-L Freelists <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:33:33 -0400
Jared, it's not the end of the database and it is neither beginning nor the
end of idiotic magazine
and web articles. Commentators like that are a very important reason for
keeping capital punishment
in the legal toolbox. This commentator probably wants fair and balanced look
at the data but without
all those pesky structures that he would have to learn about. The article
itself contains some misconceptions
about the data:
"The premise of Gartner's argument is that as improvements in networking
technologies eventually lead to real-time connectivity to any data, that
that data is best kept closest to its natural source rather than at the
intersection of a row and tuple of a database that, as it turns out, is
actually little more than a remote cache. "
To my knowledge, one doesn't "connect to any data", one uses the data. One
connects to program that manages data.
There are various data management programs, some of them even implement part
of what is known as "naïve set theory",
without the axiom of choice, Zorn's lemma and well ordering theorem (forgive
me for this gobbledygook). Their role is
to impose tabular data structure on the data as well as to enforce business
rules for the data and to optimize data retrieval
from application to application. That is quite different from being a simple
cache. Gartner's statement would hold water if
we re-work it a little, like this:
"The premise of Gartner's argument is that as improvements in networking
technologies eventually lead to real-time connectivity to any idiot
claiming to be an analyst,. It turns out that idiots that idiots are best
kept closest to their natural source, like Gartner rather then having
them in the real world commercial environment. It redefines the role of
Gartner as a remote cache of idiots."
Now that is something that I believe we all can agree with.
--
Mladen Gogala
Ext. 121
_____
From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: Death of the database
Anyone seen their workload reduced due to unstructured data?
Death of the database
As improvements in networking technologies lead to real-time
connectivity to any data, that data will be best kept closest
to its natural source rather than at the intersection of a
database's row and tuple. At last week's Symposium ITxpo, Gartner
analysts backed up that premise with two examples: an RFID-tag
equipped can of soup, and a chip embedded in the back of a human
hand. Must data always be stored -- or cached -- in a database?
If not, it's time for DBAs and BI vendors to to reinvent themselves.
http://ct.zdnet.com.com/clicks?c=625728-4778725
<http://ct.zdnet.com.com/clicks?c=625728-4778725&brand=zdnet&ds=5&fs=0>
&brand=zdnet&ds=5&fs=0
--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
Other related posts:
