tomgoodin at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 6 01:51:05 PDT 2004
--- Tracy R Reed <treed at copilotconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 01:20:41AM -0700, Cory
> Petkovsek spake thusly:
> > On a small level, either one RDB/HDB, it doesn't
> matter. RDB may be better or
> > easier if one is familiar with it. However when
> there are thousands and
> > thousands of entries it may be more efficient to
> use an HDB schema than an RDB
> > flat table. However if the RDB is separated along
> similar partitions that the
> > HDB is separated (ie domains) then I don't see any
> benefit of one over the
> > other. I suppose it might be like one's choice
> of, oh... unix, editor, mua,
> > web browser, desktop, shell, mta, language...
> That's pretty much what I thought. And I don't know
> anyone who has an LDAP
> database with thousands and thousands of entries.
> Even at MP3 we only had
> a few hundred users in our company database. I think
> I'll steer clear of
> of LDAP unless I really need it.
I'd like to 'expand my horizons' somewhat, and know
something of other systems for storing and retrieving
If it were simply that I needed a system to do this or
that, I certainly would not re-invent the wheel. But
by building my own wheel from literature, advice,
common sence, etc... I will be gaining knowledge that
may (or may not) be marketable.
If, in the process, my wheel turns out to be square
instead of round, then I'll have to figure out how to
change it to make it roll properly.
The Learnin' is the important thing, not the
practicality, usefulness, or effeciency :)
learn -> apply -> repete
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
More information about the KPLUG-List