Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Cache DB vs. SQL Server

We're evaluating a system that uses Cache as its main database storage.  I went to Cache's site, http://www.intersystems.com/ , and they basically say it will solve world hunger and cure cancer.

Has anyone out there used a post-relational DB like Cache?  Is it really faster than SQL Server?  WTF is post-relational?  I got a good intro via googling, but I still need more info.

Thanks.

nathan
Thursday, June 03, 2004

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www%2Edbdebunk%2Ecom+%22post%2Drelational%22

MR
Thursday, June 03, 2004

Thank you.  That's a great article.  I didn't think "post-relational db" was going to be the panacea that intersystems claimed.

nathan
Thursday, June 03, 2004

Don't know about the comparison against SQL Server, but my client is currently going through a 'proof of concept' with Cache on OpenVMS.  Certainly, in terms of 'bang for your buck', Cache beat Oracle hands down! 

Also of note, is that due to Cache's platform independance, we can develop our Cache application on Windows workstations, and then copy the completed application/database (CACHE.DAT) file to OpenVMS (or *NIX)

One of the selling points for my client was actually the 'post relational' functionality.  Accessing the database via SQL or object semantics didn't impact performance - the structure of their database engine doesn't trade off one access method (SQL vs object) over another.

Michael Jessopp
Wednesday, June 09, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home