[xquery-talk] SQL Server 2005

[Michael Rys]

Thanks

Please be careful with publishing perf results for Oracle and SQL
Server. I think they have restrictive licensing terms regarding that....

Best regards
Michael 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at xquery.com 
> [mailto:talk-bounces at xquery.com] On Behalf Of Frank Cohen
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:35 PM
> To: talk at xquery.com
> Subject: Re: [xquery-talk] SQL Server 2005
> 
> Hi Michael:
> 
> > Since I don't like to register to just comment on a blog, here is a
> > quick comment:
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I changed the XQueryNow.com site to allow  
> anonymous comments.
> 
> > Your comment about that FOR XML is not good to manage XML data is
> > correct, but also off the point: that's not its purpose...
> >
> > FOR XML is not meant to be used for managing XML data. It 
> is meant to
> > provide an effective and simple way to transform relational 
> data into
> > XML form.
> >
> > The XML data type and XQuery and XML-DML are meant for 
> managing XML  
> > data
> > that is not relational in nature.
> 
> Good point and I agree with you about the purpose of the XML field  
> type, XQuery and FOR XML commands being there to support XML in a  
> relational model. I'll post this as a comment to the blog entry for  
> other readers.
> 
> > You better look at the XML data type and the (at the moment only  
> > subset)
> > support of XQuery. Critique in that area would be much more  
> > appropriate
> > for this list and more useful.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. I'm happy to offer a critique of 
> using XML  
> in a relational model and will post a critique to this list. I'm  
> working on a performance and scalability study that among other  
> things compares performance of native XML DB tools to relational  
> tools that will back up a critique.
> 
> -Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Michael Rys wrote:
> 
> > Hi Frank
> >
> > Since I don't like to register to just comment on a blog, here is a
> > quick comment:
> >
> > Your comment about that FOR XML is not good to manage XML data is
> > correct, but also off the point: that's not its purpose...
> >
> > FOR XML is not meant to be used for managing XML data. It 
> is meant to
> > provide an effective and simple way to transform relational 
> data into
> > XML form.
> >
> > The XML data type and XQuery and XML-DML are meant for 
> managing XML  
> > data
> > that is not relational in nature.
> >
> > You better look at the XML data type and the (at the moment only  
> > subset)
> > support of XQuery. Critique in that area would be much more  
> > appropriate
> > for this list and more useful.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Michael
> >
> > Disclosure: I am the Program Manager for XML data type, 
> XQuery and FOR
> > XML in SQL Server 2005
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: talk-bounces at xquery.com
> >> [mailto:talk-bounces at xquery.com] On Behalf Of Frank Cohen
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:58 AM
> >> To: talk at xquery.com
> >> Subject: [xquery-talk] SQL Server 2005
> >>
> >> Maybe SQL Server 2005 has some new secret sauce for handling XML
> >> data. I ran across Jerry Dixon's article in which he talks 
> about the
> >> new XML features. Jerry writes from a software developer 
> perspective
> >> that seems true: He likes the new XML features but uses them to
> >> create XML, not to store XML.
> >>
> >> I blog about this at:
> >>
> >> http://www.xquerynow.com/cohensxblog/sql2005.html
> >>
> >> -Frank
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Frank Cohen, Raining Data, http://www.RainingData.com, phone:
> >> 408 236
> >> 7604
> >> http://www.xquerynow.com for free XML, XQuery and native XML
> >> database
> >> tips,
> >> techniques and solutions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> talk at xquery.com
> >> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk at xquery.com
> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>