RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: "Goulet, Richard" <Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:51:46 -0400
Nuno,
Forgive me for chopping out your lengthily message as I'm afraid
it will hit the quote limit. But a lot of what you say was also held as
true of the relational movement many years ago. Back then we were
staring at various hieratical systems that were very well entrenched in
the IT world, IE HP's TURBO IMAGE. These all needed much customized
code (HP Turbo Image intrinsics as they were called instead of SQL) to
make things work and yes re-writes were a constant as well as changing
the data stores which was always painful. Been there, done that, and
the thought still makes me wince. But change the IT world did because
SQL promised something for everyone, namely a standard way of accessing
data that more people could understand, something that Cobol also
promised but missed the boat.
As for your companies decision to upgrade Notes vs. enter into
one of the new CRM packages, bravo. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it,
assuming that's the direction you want to go in. We looked at ManMan's
replacement product, since HP decided to desupport the HP3000 and MPE
operating system. Problem was that the ManMan-X product was ugly,
expensive, hard to work with meaning more training for end users, etc...
PeopleSoft was a more intuitive and easier to use which lead to less
training and consequently why we choose it.
As for NON-SQL data stores, they have been around since the
introduction of the punch card, and yes it did provide my wife with
several years of gainful employment "key punching", but they like these
new ideas needed custom code and many "refactorings" to keep up with the
current technology and needs (I'd love to have a dollar for every time
my wife complained about having to redo her "drum cards" because someone
changed the requirements, it would cover my 401k losses). And I figure
that these non-traditional data stores will continue into the distant
future to fulfill some point solution.
I think though that the bottom line these folks were really
trying to make is that they want something that is fast, runs on
commodity hardware, for commercial purposes, and is dirt cheap. The
last point being the sticky one that none of the main stream database
vendors has addresses appropriately.
Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
PAREXEL International
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
