Jim Lawrence
jlawrenc1 at shaw.ca
Thu Mar 13 13:02:10 CDT 2014
Hi Guys: To my understanding the issues around bound and unbound and SQL and NoSQL are basically the same. A bound database was practical and possible when the database or number of users was small but beyond a certain size; in the case of default MS Access, fifty users was pushing it and the ability to maintain such a system was impractical. This is the same with SQL. When the database reaches a certain size or the data reaches a certain level of complexity, the ability to retrieve a specific data set can be very time consuming as the SQL engine is really grinding. SQLs great weakness is the limits on join complexity and the inflexibility of the schema. (I have first hand experience crippling a big Oracle server...) So neither of the bound-unbound or the SQL-NoSQL is wrong but the context in which these methods are used are dictated by the number of users and the amount of data to be managed. Jim PS: Mark I would really like to know all your experiences with MongoDB. As I now have a 64bit server class motherboard with 32GB of RAM and as soon as the server is assembled MongoDB will be one of my first experiments. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Breen" <marklbreen at gmail.com> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, 12 March, 2014 1:57:25 AM Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate Hello Shamil, yes, I agree completely, this is a much more up to date thread to discuss. I worked on a project last year that had to store thousands or tens of thousands of records. However, they wanted 100% failsafe fail over. They used two mongo dbs and they told me the db's just take care of they syncing. That is interesting to me. Nowadays with hardware so cheap, it is interesting to think that we can have two or three servers running our BE. But as you are hinting at, it is a new mindshift, one that we have to open up to sooner or later, not necessarily to store billions or records, but as a new way to store data. Mark On 12 March 2014 05:25, Salakhetdinov Shamil <mcp2004 at mail.ru> wrote: > Yes, but here in dba-SQL-Server "SQL Server vs. NoSQL" "holy war" thread > would be more suitable than "Bound vs Unbound controls", should we ask > Arthur to initiate it? ;) > > > Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:00 AM UTC from Darryl Collins < > darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au>: > >Bound vs Unbound controls also seems to be a topic that gets folks, > ummm, passionate, about their position I have noted... > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto: > dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Francisco Tapia > >Sent: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 6:41 AM > >To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server > >Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] PK/ANPK Debate > > > >On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Arthur Fuller < fuller.artful at gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> Said mission was not to prove > >> or even posit my point, but to kick the ashes and see whether the > >> embers are still burning. And they are! Nothing like a hot topic to > >> awake the sleeping dragons. > >> > > > >hahaha, you know this topic sparks an un-holy war! XD > > > >It's even more religious than the thou shall not use cursors in your > SQL!!! > >lol > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com