Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
===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.) ====================== In reply to Re: Re: XML for databases?!?! Is it just me or is the rest of the world nutz?
by S_Shrum
|
|