Eric Russell 13013 (9/21/2010)
mtillman-921105 (9/21/2010)
To what extent were relational DBMS created because drive space wasn't cheap and processing power was weak? Big, flat tables weren't helpful in either case years ago.Now I've staked my career on SQL Server, so don't just jump all over me. But I've seen this point brought up elsewhere and wondered how bad it would be to just use flat tables. All the other software may not be dead, but it is bloated! Why not databases too? Summary tables could be created on the side too, which of course helps performance.
Video graphics cards work in a brute force, but kind of a dumb way. But they do work - right?
Someone respectfully prove me wrong. Please. (Because frankly, I'm a little worried.) :w00t:
I've still got a shrink wrapped copy of FoxPro 2.6 for DOS, if you're willing to trade for a SQL Server 2008 Enterprise license.
That is funny, but FoxPro was relational believe it or not. (I was a FoxPro programmer and have actually worked with that version.) In fact, I think that even dBase III+ was relational, for that matter.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking