1. RE: RDMS Database's and/or Record Managers
Euman wrote:
> You all know I wrote the tsunami record manager wrappers and I want to=
=20
> share somethings and get some kind of feedback.
Without spending much time responding I'll reply with the following=20
points.=20=20
I feel like you=92re trying to convince people that record managers=20
are a powerful tool (which is fine) but I don=92t believe you are=20
giving people the full picture of what RDBMS can do.=20
Databases also contain mechanisms for:
* security,=20
* external access to the data through 3rd party tools (like ODBC),
* powerful backup and restore features,
* stores procedures and triggers,=20
* referential integrity,
* transaction support,
* views,
* some provide data replication and distribution,
* and probably more things that I've never used (I'm not a big RDBMS=20
user)
The Pros for RDBMS =85
A good RDBMS is "almost" always required for large and complex=20
projects.=20=20
When you have 500 or 1,000 tables and 20,000 programs it can be=20
difficult to track down how an invoice number got deleted when it=20
shouldn't have.=20=20
Transaction support and good database design ensure data integrity=20
Data Security (from an application view point) can be guaranteed and=20
a misbehaving program can=92t accidentally revel or corrupt data that=20
it shouldn=92t.
Programming complex queries and updates can be done very easily with=20
SQL (saving programmer time and reducing the possibility of errors).
=20
The Cons for RDBMS =85
RDBMS are almost always are more difficult to setup and administer.
RDBMS require more processing power.
Like all things in IT (and life) there are many ways to do achieve=20
the same goal and you should always try and use the best tool for=20
the job.
In general (90% of all generalisations are incorrect!) =85
Smaller applications with fewer users =93can=94 use record managers=20
happily.
Larger more complex applications with more users tend to use RDBMS.
For smaller applications I personally prefer tools like SQLite which act=
=20
as a compromise between the two.=20
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
2. RE: RDMS Database's and/or Record Managers
Euman wrote:
> From: "Ray Smith" <smithr at ix.net.au>
[snip]
> > but I dont believe you are giving people the full picture of what RDBMS
> > can do.
>
> Why would i?
Because you are giving an overview of Databases vs Record Managers
and then saying how good record managers are.
>Have you even given tsunami a look Ray?
I looked at the tsunami record manager in the past but not since you
created your eu wrappers.
I'm not saying the tsunami record manager is bad in anyway at all.
> Just how much easier is this than the tsunami wrappers?
> 1) to learn
> 2) for speed
> 3) for security (any encryption routine will do, there are several in
> the RDS archive)
> *(Tsunami Pro has built-in encryption)
> 4) total control of your data
I listed (and hence agree) that there is more work in setting up and
mainting a RDBMS.
>From a programming point of view SQL can give you alot of flexibility
and power that record managers don't give you. And yes, it will take
more time for a developer to learn these things but that time should
be recoped in the long term by the efficiency of these powerful
tools and technologies.
> > The Pros for RDBMS
> >
> > A good RDBMS is "almost" always required for large and complex
> > projects.
>
> Is this true?
I beleive it's true.
>Can you see anything written useing euphoria's speed for large projects
>anyway?
I agree, I personally don't think Euphoria can handle large complex
systems.
That doesn't mean that I wouldn't use a database for a Euphoria
project though ;)
Just like in some cases record managers "could" be used in some large
complex systems.
Every case needs to be reviewed and a decision made based on the
features required.
The only reason I replied in the first place was that "I" thought
you gave a one sided view.
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
3. RE: RDMS Database's and/or Record Managers
Euman wrote:
> I personally think that those using EDS that need more power should
> try tsunami, those who need multi-user support, multiple key search's
> from within each record (if needed), speed, recovery, rebuilds, only
> 38 commands to learn and full control over any type data, etc...
I think this is an excellent statement :)
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
4. RE: RDMS Database's and/or Record Managers
> From: Euman
>
> Just how much easier is this than the tsunami wrappers?
> 1) to learn
> 2) for speed
> 3) for security (any encryption routine will do, there are
> several in the RDS archive)
> *(Tsunami Pro has built-in encryption)
I doubt this is what Ray meant by 'security' (because it's not what I'd
mean if I mentioned RDBMS security :). Commercial RDMBS (Oracle, SQL
Server, etc) allow administrators to set up users and grant permissions
to them based on activity (SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE, etc) and by table. I
suppose you could liken an RDBMS to a 'data operating system.'
Matt Lewis
5. RE: RDMS Database's and/or Record Managers
Euman wrote:
> Wouldnt this be the same or similar to writting custom in-code queries
> Matt?
> You are only limited by your imagination and experience using Tsunami.
The problem with writing custom in-code queries is when your query
has a bug. All of a sudden "sensitive" information is available
to people who shouldn't have access to it.
The builtin security of rdbms has been heavily tested and robust.
Also, how do you give people ODBC access to the database if some
tables/fields should not be available to some users?
> Also, a good idea would be to write a GUI that list users and rights.
This comes builtin to most rmdb systems.
Regards,
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
