[AccessD] XML

 >However, for transferring data, storing things like individual settings, etc., it is quick, easy 
and efficient.

I will give you the quick and easy part, particularly for the individual settings part.

In terms of transferring data, it is just a bumbling mass of inefficiencies.  Try sending a hundred 
million records of 640 fields and see if you can even fit the file on a terabyte disk.  The answer 
will be NO!  XML is rapidly being adopted for transferring data across the internet and yet it 
expands the size of the data by a factor of 10, or even 100.  It is simply ludicrous for such uses. 
  Pipe delimited CSV files are an order of magnitude more efficient for that kind of thing.  Now I 
will grant you that you do not get the data type etc with that but still...

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com


Charlotte Foust wrote:
> And I wasn't talking about storing a whole database in it.  However, for
> transferring data, storing things like individual settings, etc., it is
> quick, easy and efficient.  It is CERTAINLY as efficient as delimited
> text for such things since the adapters are already built into .net, so
> there's no need to create them one off for each effort.  You don't have
> to read the xml into a particular structure because the structure is
> built in.  And we store SQL in xml files where it can be quickly
> retrieved by our data tier but is compiled into the dll putting it
> beyond the reach of exploring users.
> 
> Charlotte Foust 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:06 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] XML
> 
> I have to say I agree with Stuart on this one.  XML is about as
> inefficient as you can get for storing data.
> 
> We as database designers strive to select the smallest possible datatype
> to hold whatever data we are storing in the data store.  Now you export
> a long integer to XML and it turns into hundreds of bytes.  And all so
> it can be man readable?  When was the last time you actually read an XML
> document?  What percentage of all XML documents do you (or any human)
> ever actually read (in XML format)?
> 
> It is almost as if the hard disk consortium got together in a secret
> room deep in a mountain in Russia, surrounded by KGB security specially
> hired to keep their meeting private... and designed a "storage system"
> to help them stimulate sales.
> 
> "Hard drives have gotten so big that people are only buying one.  Let's
> design this system called XML that will take anything and store it in
> layers of wrappers that will expand the original size by 1000.  We will
> sell many more disks now..."
> 
> "Now let's leak it's existence to MS and tell them that it has already
> become the next storage standard..."
> 
> "Ahh... our plan worked, MS is now storing the world in XML."
> 
> Disk drive manufacturer stock prices skyrocket, approaching the share
> price of Berkshire Hathaway..
> 
> High fives around...
> 
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
> 
>