RE: Death of the database

As usual Gartner is full of manure in the first place.  Sure RFID tags
can be attached to cans of soup, and counted, if you want to pay a
person to run up and down the isles of the store to inventory what is on
the shelf, never mind what's in the back room.  These guys seem to
forget that an RFID tag is only useable within a couple of feet away,
depending on size. Whereas the database is accessible from anywhere and
has the larger view.  GOD, I can just see the buyer at Shaws, Hanaford,
or Stop&Shop calling every store to go scan their shelves for a soup
count before he buys more!  He's got all of that data at his fingertips
today, plus what's on the truck and warehouse.  Analysts have got to be
the greatest ostrich's in existence.

  _____  

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jared Still
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&brand=zdnet&ds=5&fs=0
<http://ct.zdnet.com.com/clicks?c=625728-4778725&brand=zdnet&ds=5&fs=0> 


-- 
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

Other related posts: