===This part to inblosam===
But then again isn't a tabled database "simply organized and parsed" not to mention smaller in size due to the omission of the redundant record and field markup? I could take that a step further and say that tabled data loads faster on large data sources (disk to memory) as a result vs. XML data sources.
===This part for everyone else===
Everyone so far has been "portability-this" and "parsable-that". This is not a question of how one can deal with XML data sources but rather WHY one would choose such a format over a tabluar format (so far I really haven't seen a reason that I couldn't apply to tabled data sources).
Portability, converting, and parsing are not ADVANTAGES over tabluar databases as the same can be said for tabled data.
Once again: Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Give me some XML database PROs that CANNOT be applied to tabluar databases (flat-files, etc.)
======================
Sean Shrum
http://www.shrum.net
In reply to Re: Re: XML for databases?!?! Is it just me or is the rest of the world nutz?
by S_Shrum
in thread XML for databases?!?! Is it just me or is the rest of the world nutz?
by S_Shrum
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |