in reply to Re: SQL? We don't need no steenking SQL!
in thread SQL? We don't need no steenking SQL!
I'm using 'we' in the metaphorical sense (a la Blazing
Saddles). Non sequiturs are a specialty of mine.
As far as I can tell, dbm et al are only hash tables cached to
disk; it doesn't seem to permit arbitrary column access,
which is the main requirement for me. In other words, I'd
still have to write the bulk of what I've got, and just sit
it on a dbm file instead of a plaintext file. The two seem
disjoint to me.
This beastie is for OOP practice, and to tide me over until I can port our data
to Postgres.