Some of the same problems can be solved in different ways. For instance, aggregate data can often be calculated at write time, obviating the need for an expensive aggregate runtime query involving millions of records and hundreds of machines. The tricky bit is implementing the different solutions using compatible APIs, which isn't always possible.
-- Dan On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Marcel Overdijk <marceloverd...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Maybe for performance the datastore as it is now is best. > But when working with data (e.g. aggregate functions like sum, avg > etc.) a relational database has also advantages. > > > On 8 apr, 19:58, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > > It might not make "sence" but it certainly makes "sense" when you're > living > > in a world full of RDBMS, and want to make the barrier to entry as low as > > possible. > > > > Thanks- > > - Andy Badera > > - and...@badera.us > > - Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera > > > > Sent from Albany, NY, United States > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Barry Hunter < > barrybhun...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar, but it wouldnt make sence to have two database backends.- > Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
