Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
If it woth 64 000$, then it's a BECAUSE :) Otherwise, there are many
good other reasons beside being greedy :
- SQL databases are reliable, when jdbm database is not
Well, one might argue that there are better reliable storage manager
choices than a client/server RDBMS.
- SQL databases have a _lot_ of tools, when we don't have any - or
close to any
True, but not necessarily a good thing ;)
- SQL Database support transactions, and it's good to have, because we
don't support them...
See item #1 above.
- SQL Database can be replicated
Sometimes, although the style of replication may not suit the directory
application.
- SQL Database can be stored on a SAN or a cluster easily
True, but a non-feature for a directory service with its own replication.
- There are a lot of addon like Hibernate to do the mapping on SQL
database
- Some customer want trustable storage. Oraacle is trustable (well,
this is questionnable... A system is as string as its weakest element
(man ?) :)
Yeah, this is the 'data store envy' argument.
- And, so far, database are quite fast. IBM IDS is using DB2, I have
seen it running with 70 000 000 entries, and it was fast enough for
our needs...
So they fixed the 2Gbyte table size limit then ;)
