|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: GISList: Microsoft SQL Server Vs Oracle Spatial9i |
| Date: |
12/10/2002 01:11:41 PM |
| From: |
Frank Warmerdam |
|
|
Dimitri Rotow wrote:
> That's true, but the price you pay for using OGC is that it locks you down
> to an obsolete, slow and non-scalable architecture. The gain of going
> vendor-specific is often a hundred-fold or thousand-fold increase in
> performance, superior integration, dramatically expanded capabilities and
> reduced cost of ownership.
Dimitri,
Could you please provide some more information to backup your statement
that an OGC standards based solution is obsolete and non-scalable? In
particular can you explain what is wrong with the OGC Simple Features for SQL
specification?
It seems to me that that a database vendor that implements built-in
support for SF-SQL should be able to achieve good performance.
Please don't try to "prove" your point by demonstrating that some
implementations are slow ... instead please demonstrate that there can't
be a scalable and/or fast implementation.
I will conceed that it isn't necessary to have spatial extensions
in the database in to achieve good spatial data access performance in
a database.
> It is also disingenuous to criticize (by implication, your use of the phrase
> "locking you down") using a specific desktop GIS or middleware package, as
> if welding yourself to OGC does not also "lock" you down to a given set of
> constraints.
I will conceed that sticking to a standards based approach has some downsides
- for instance, the standard does not address many kinds of geometry (2.5D,
topology). However, I feel it is relatively easy to have many different
client implementations all backed by one common corporate spatial datastore
using OGC standards. If an enterprise stores all it's spatial data in
"manifold" format, is it easy or practical for other clients to access the
data without using Manifold software components? It may be, but many of
the vendor specific formats for storing data in RDBMSes depend on other
clients either using provided middleware, or having access to some information
(such as spatial indexes) that are outside the database.
I would claim that using a standards based spatial database makes it more
practical to use a variety of client software to access, and update the
database without locking your enterprise into one front end.
PS. I appreciate your posts even when they "get by back up", but I would
appreciate a more detailed proof of some of your points. I think this is
especially important in cases where you are desparaging other organizations
products, or industry standards and claiming your own product is superior.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
To unsubscribe, write to gislist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
________________________________________________________________________
GeoCommunity GeoBids - less than $1 per day!
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
http://www.geobids.com
Setup a GeoCommunity Account and have access to
the GISDataDepot DRG & DOQQ Catalog
http://www.geocomm.com/login.php
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
