adam machanic now blogs at http://sqlblog.com
This blog is officially retired. Please visit http://sqlblog.com.
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Home
Jun
July 2008
Aug
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Search
Go
Archives
July 2007 (1)
June 2007 (2)
May 2007 (5)
March 2007 (1)
January 2007 (1)
December 2006 (3)
November 2006 (2)
October 2006 (3)
September 2006 (4)
August 2006 (2)
July 2006 (3)
June 2006 (4)
May 2006 (4)
April 2006 (1)
March 2006 (3)
February 2006 (4)
January 2006 (1)
December 2005 (2)
November 2005 (1)
October 2005 (3)
September 2005 (4)
August 2005 (7)
June 2005 (3)
May 2005 (7)
April 2005 (12)
March 2005 (12)
February 2005 (12)
January 2005 (15)
December 2004 (3)
November 2004 (8)
October 2004 (10)
News
Navigation
home
Blogs
Photos
Login
Post Categories
database mirroring
(rss)
Service Broker
(rss)
SQLblog
(rss)
SQLQueryStress
(rss)
webcasts
(rss)
Article Categories
T-SQL
SQL Server Links
SQLblog
posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:42 AM by
amachanic
More XML Fun!
A couple of new links for your enjoyment:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=97
http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/index.php?p=1487
... That's all for now.
Comments
#
Why XML Documents in the Database?
@ Wednesday, September 07, 2005 4:50 PM
Well Adam, thanks for pointing both George Ou and John Carrol out. How fair and balanced...
Anonymous
#
re: More XML Fun!
@ Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:08 AM
Both are great blogs. George has a very valid point. I tend to agree with John's responce to George's Blog though. XML has it's place and I'm not sure that it is in standardizing of the office documents though part of it makes since, and for now, certainly not in RDBMS storage of data. For now it seems to belong in the data transfer realm more so. Maybe XML experts or developers have a grander vision than us DBA's (being the artsy fartsy types they are :) ).
I can see where that would be enticing for MS to go that route because they could do quite a few things with it. For one, they could, combine all office tools into one interface using XML format to determine what data goes where, but it would seem to me that they might loose $ on licensing going through a single interface. Though they could still charge for each component (pay for the word plug-in, excel plug-in, etc.).
It certainly might make it easier on the developers in the design groups, plus, make the documents usable with other apps besides office (doubt MS would like that though that's how adobe broke into the market), and visa versa if they could make the world standardize on it (which they tend to strongly influence).
But I see where George is going with it in the since that it takes more CPU cycles and disk space to accomidate, but such is technology as it grows.
John's point to the Yukon performance is documented and proven to be true about the XML usage in the database. I dont think it will ever get to the place where it will take the place of an RDBMS because there is too much overhead required. Although, there was a lot of talk about that some years ago.
Both are entertaining views though.
Thanks Adam.
znichter
#
XML discussion
@ Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:13 AM
Check out Adam Machanic's blog from yesterday about XML opinions.  He has 2 links there pointing...
Anonymous