durusmail: durus-users: OODB vs SQL
OODB basics
2005-10-08
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-11
2005-10-12
Re: OODB basics
2005-10-11
OODB vs SQL
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-10
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-10
OT: Durus
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-10
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-12
2005-10-12
2005-10-12
Demo application [was: Re: [Durus-users] Re: OODB vs SQL]
2005-10-13
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-11
Durus basics
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-10
2005-10-10
2005-10-10
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
Re: OODB basics
2005-10-13
OODB vs SQL
A.M. Kuchling
2005-10-11
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:05:38AM -0300, Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra wrote:
> [ Rod Senra ]:
> > > I wonder if C.J.Date mentioned anything about databases for storing
> > > large dense graphs in that book ? I suspect this is an area where OODB
> > > would be more suitable than Relational DBs.
> [ David Binger ]:
> > I'd be interested to hear about the storage design for a database of
> > that size.
>
> [ Mario Ruggier]:
> > I would also be very intrigued by the design choices of such a storage.

You might look at what the RDF community is doing for large data sets.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/rdf_scalable_storage_report/
surveys the available free software libraries.

Generally they store 3-tuples consisting of (source node, arc label,
dest. node or value), either as a RDBMS table or in some more
specialized way.  I don't know if RDF graphs count as "dense"; what
does "dense" mean in this context?

--amk
reply