Note that aggregate functions are a feature often implemented on a RDBMS, but they could be implemented on the Datastore (eg using covering indexes) without being relational.
On 08/04/2009, 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 - > > > > -- Barry - www.nearby.org.uk - www.geograph.org.uk - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
