Talk:XML database: Difference between revisions
→XML not ideal for databases?: XML not bad- not the TRUE answer :-) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
: This is not a particularly true comment. Different database technologies have different pros and cons. XML takes up more space and requires more whole file handling but has embedded semantic meaning and keywords within it which can massively speed up processing if you are doing a lot of indexing and "keyword" searching. The statement that XML is "not suited" for databases is a common thing that classical database people say!:-) As storage, disk space, and CPU speeds go up and become more efficient XML becomes more and more useful. [[User:AJackl|Alex Jackl]] 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
: This is not a particularly true comment. Different database technologies have different pros and cons. XML takes up more space and requires more whole file handling but has embedded semantic meaning and keywords within it which can massively speed up processing if you are doing a lot of indexing and "keyword" searching. The statement that XML is "not suited" for databases is a common thing that classical database people say!:-) As storage, disk space, and CPU speeds go up and become more efficient XML becomes more and more useful. [[User:AJackl|Alex Jackl]] 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: Well, you're basically agreeing that XML is inefficient, if you say you need more storage, disk space, and CPU speed for it to be useful. [[Special:Contributions/201.212.44.26|201.212.44.26]] ([[User talk:201.212.44.26|talk]]) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:35, 7 December 2007
Shouldn't native XML databases and XML enabled databases have their own articles?
semi-structured data
Can semi-structured data have more info too, and maybe a separate article?
Are XML database DBMS?
I was wondering whether or not we could view XML database as DBMS? --194.221.74.7 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The following article should be cited
This page refers contents of the following article (almost a cut/paste). Shouldn't this URL at least be cited? http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/10/31/nativexmldb.html
Request: does anyone know if anyone actually uses these?
It would be nice to know the adoption history of this idea.--Joanna Bryson 12:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
XML not ideal for databases?
I read this article in Dutch In short, it stated that XML is not suited for databases because you have to read /write the entire file when accessing and changing data and it misses some key features for indexing/searching editing etc. http://www.lizatec.com/LIZATEC/XMLHYPEOFZEGEN/XMLALSDATABSE
maybe users should be given a warning that these DTBs can cause problem when they become large.
- This is not a particularly true comment. Different database technologies have different pros and cons. XML takes up more space and requires more whole file handling but has embedded semantic meaning and keywords within it which can massively speed up processing if you are doing a lot of indexing and "keyword" searching. The statement that XML is "not suited" for databases is a common thing that classical database people say!:-) As storage, disk space, and CPU speeds go up and become more efficient XML becomes more and more useful. Alex Jackl 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you're basically agreeing that XML is inefficient, if you say you need more storage, disk space, and CPU speed for it to be useful. 201.212.44.26 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)