1 / 8

Object and o bject-relational databases

Object and o bject-relational databases. Fall 2011. What’s wrong with relational databases?. No collection types No user-defined types No object-IDs (no object identity and so no object semantics) therefore: only v alue semantics Impedance mismatch No subtypes

elvin
Download Presentation

Object and o bject-relational databases

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Object and object-relational databases Fall 2011

  2. What’s wrong with relational databases? • No collection types • No user-defined types • No object-IDs (no object identity and so no object semantics) • therefore: only value semantics • Impedance mismatch • No subtypes • No large or unstructured attributes

  3. Why object-oriented? • Multiple reasons…. • Better data types • Avoid impedance problems • Object semantics • Single language – a “persistent” language

  4. So, a new approach • A persistent programming language • maybe with selective persistence • A uniform application and database data structuring approach • Advanced and augmentable data types • Able to server more application domains • engineering? • medicine and science and geographic applications • more complex transactions run less often on smaller “tables” • business logic - moves the protection of the database upward • long term decision making?

  5. What is an object? • Page 524 – an (OID, value) • Primitive values • Reference values • Tuple values • Set values • Plus subtyping • Plus method encapsulation • Plus augment object-oriented language with SQL-like capabilities • need path expressions

  6. Problems with o-o databases • Cost of pulling entire objects into memory • Temptation to create large and complex objects • Difficulty in isolating SQL-like operations to optimize them • No upward compatibility • ** Didn’t actually increase applicability of database technology • no sophisticated complaints • no analytical operations • no advanced media like images, video, audio, graphics, and xml documents • no text objects or text searching • no notion of time or versions • no way to separate large volume, simple types from small types that have complex structure

  7. Object-relational databases • Relational venders didn’t want to get blown out like H/N database venders • Objects “from the bottom up” • set valued and array valued domains • user defined types • Subtypes • Still uses two languages • Bimodel data model: • tupes • objects • see page 530

  8. Interesting facts • Extensions are not widely used • User defined types are perhaps the most popular adaption • Newer extensions for xml, image, video, audio, and graphics data are very popular

More Related