Object database: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:26, 26 September 2012

Revision as of 04:33, 10 October 2012

Line 14:

Some object-oriented databases are designed to work well with [[object-oriented programming language]]s such as [[Object Pascal|Delphi]], [[Ruby (programming language)|Ruby]], [[Python (programming language)|Python]], [[Perl]], [[Java (programming language)|Java]], [[C Sharp (programming language)|C#]], [[Visual Basic .NET]], [[C++]], [[Objective-C]] and [[Smalltalk]]; others have their own programming languages. OODBMSs use exactly the same model as object-oriented programming languages.

==Industry Disagreement==

There are two major groups of thought about what qualities are used to describe an ODBMS, first is when the database supports object inheritance in a similar manner as an [[Object-oriented_programming|object-oriented programming]] language, and secondly is that the database support hierarchical data encapsulation in a similar way to [[XML]], [[JSON]] or serialized [[PHP]] objects.

The first school of thought is in reality is rare as will underlining database design is inefficient, as it is often spread over several separate database tables. For example if class 'Foo' extends class 'Bar', then the data defined within 'Foo' would be within one table and the data for 'Bar' would be within another, this separation is essential as class 'Goo' that also extends class 'Bar' will share the same 'Bar' table. This design then requires multiple reads, lock, logs and writes and can slow all transaction down.

The second school of thought is often done within industry standard SQL database by using a standard text fields, however this does have the effect of locking away the data held within as [[Sql|SQL]] only understands single or [[Comma-separated_values|comma separated values]]. Object Database of this school of thought will allow for database to be encoded in a hierarchical manner, while still allowing data to be [[Database_index|indexed]].

==History==