Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL

> Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> 
> I'll comment on the other issues later ... but I will say that I don't
> think it's acceptable to add *any* overhead to standard-SQL queries
> in order to support inheritance better.  The vast majority of our users
> want SQL performance and don't give a damn about inheritance.  We have
> to pay attention to that.
> 
Well said ! 
Actually I'm a little bit uncertain what ORDBMS really improves ? After
writing a full mapper and wrapper for PostgreSQL and a Smalltalk dialect
I see really no usage for these additional inheritance features databases
like PostgreSQL offer.
Some points about this:
 - all these additional features are very specific to PostgreSQL and   are not compatible with other databases. Writing
anapplication    based on these features results in non-portable systems. - Speed is still a very, very important
featurefor a database. A   single query, which uses about 5 seconds because the optimizer   is not very clever to use
severalindices to improove the    query execution is much more worse and can change the structure   of the whole
applicationprogram.
 
 - when creating automatic sql-queries through a mapper one can get   very complicated sql queries which tests the
parservery hard and   the limits of PostgreSQL has been seen very quickly during   the development of the wrapper
above.
 What I'm missing from these new database are structural changes to
the query system: the possibility to execute complicated 
concatenated queries on the server .. perhaps with different 
parameters.
Just some ideas about all these nice features
Marten