Comments on: My own data management software taxonomy http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/ Choices in data management and analysis Fri, 16 May 2008 20:44:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Dawn M. Wolthuis http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/#comment-82751 Dawn M. Wolthuis Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:14:33 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/#comment-82751 Cache' self-declares as an OO DBMS and, if I recall, Gartner has them (at least has U2) as embedded. So, using those same terms to mean something different would be at the very least confusing, I would think. I am also curious what precisely puts it in the mid-range compared to the high-end. Is that an eye-of-the-beholder thing or are there specific benchmarks you have in mind? Cache’ self-declares as an OO DBMS and, if I recall, Gartner has them (at least has U2) as embedded. So, using those same terms to mean something different would be at the very least confusing, I would think. I am also curious what precisely puts it in the mid-range compared to the high-end. Is that an eye-of-the-beholder thing or are there specific benchmarks you have in mind?

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/#comment-82651 Curt Monash Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:03:50 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/#comment-82651 Dawn, They're squarely in Category 2. Nowhere there is a relational model assumed. Best, CAM Dawn,

They’re squarely in Category 2. Nowhere there is a relational model assumed.

Best,

CAM

]]> By: Dawn M. Wolthuis http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/#comment-82626 Dawn M. Wolthuis Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:26:09 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/2008/04/10/my-own-data-management-software-taxonomy/#comment-82626 I would be curious where you would place InterSystems Cache' and IBM U2 databases (UniData and UniVerse). I classify them both as NF2 (Non-First Normal Form) databases, or possible MultiValue databases, even if these are not particularly hip 21st century designations. These products have an SQL interface and also other means, such as object, XML, and/or PICK languages for working with the DBMS. They are often classifed as "embedded," which is not altogether accurate and is certainly not a comprehensive classification. When it comes to scalability, performance, reliability, etc, I would think at least the first of these would be in your 1. High-end OLTP/general-purpose DBMS category, although you could decide to classify Cache' as 6. XML and OO DBMS (but these may merge with search) too, for example. Since your categories are not "normalized" if you are trying to put each DBMS into just one of the buckets, rather than tagging them in multiple categories (and perhaps you are permitting a multivalued list of categories), you would be eliminating the possibility of a High-end OLTP general purpose DBMS for any products fitting another category. So, I would suggest separating out matters of use and scalability from indications of the related data models used in the DBMS developer APIs/languages. Maybe a "pick one from the scalability column, one or more from the developer APIs/languages column, and one from the primary purpose column" would still be simple enough? I would be curious where you would place InterSystems Cache’ and IBM U2 databases (UniData and UniVerse). I classify them both as NF2 (Non-First Normal Form) databases, or possible MultiValue databases, even if these are not particularly hip 21st century designations. These products have an SQL interface and also other means, such as object, XML, and/or PICK languages for working with the DBMS. They are often classifed as “embedded,” which is not altogether accurate and is certainly not a comprehensive classification. When it comes to scalability, performance, reliability, etc, I would think at least the first of these would be in your 1. High-end OLTP/general-purpose DBMS category, although you could decide to classify Cache’ as 6. XML and OO DBMS (but these may merge with search) too, for example.

Since your categories are not “normalized” if you are trying to put each DBMS into just one of the buckets, rather than tagging them in multiple categories (and perhaps you are permitting a multivalued list of categories), you would be eliminating the possibility of a High-end OLTP general purpose DBMS for any products fitting another category.

So, I would suggest separating out matters of use and scalability from indications of the related data models used in the DBMS developer APIs/languages. Maybe a “pick one from the scalability column, one or more from the developer APIs/languages column, and one from the primary purpose column” would still be simple enough?

]]>