Are products such as SQL Server and Oracle examples of ORDBMS?

According to wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDBMS

IBM DB2, an Oracle database and Microsoft SQL Server, claims to support this technology and varying degrees of success

So, are these products true "ORDBMS" like PostgreSQL? Or are they far from him? Can someone please provide me with any link where I can read about the functions that will still be implemented by these DBMSs in order to become real ORDBMS!

+4
source share
5 answers

Oracle again branded itself as ORDBMS with the release of 8.0, which was the version when TYPE arrived. However, this was not a very complete implementation of the object. There was no inheritance in the first release, and until 9iR2 — three major releases later — to get user-defined constructors. Even now, when 11g out, encapsulation is not fully supported: TYPEs cannot have private variables or methods.

It turned out that very few existing Oracle clients took care of objects, and very few OO programmers were interested in databases. In addition, a new next “Big thing” has appeared: the Internet. Therefore, when version 8.1 was released, Oracle returned to simple RDBMS, albeit with Internet support. Consequently, tag 8 i (i.e., had Java stored procedures).

For those of us who have grown up in SQL, implementing an object is a bit awkward and has little to do with storage. However, TYPEs were an important addition to the PL / SQL arsenal, especially collections and bulk processing. Inheritance and polymorphism may be useful in some niche scenarios. I introduced this topic to the annual UKOUG conference a few years ago. Find out more .

Edit

Oracle continues to include all of its ORDBMS features in every database release. They are quite extensive (except for the lack of private variables and methods). I do not know how it compares with PostgreSQL. The Oracle OR features are described in the Oracle online documentation, which you can read here here .

+7
source

There is no absolute definition of ORDBMS. How Oracle is going to store objects hides them in tables under covers .

This is all the smoke and mirrors coming back ten years later when object-oriented databases were carved as the next big thing.

I suspect there will be no massive leaps in the level of “facility support” that major suppliers are investing in their existing products. This is similar to the demand for object / document repository databases, probably in non-RDBMS applications. Thus, vendors are more likely to create or buy individual products and focus on products that serve to integrate data, no matter how they are stored.

+3
source

In the case of an SQL server, it does not support these functions.

Although, as you know, there are many tools that will help you with this, for example LINQ.

+1
source

Yes, both Oracle and SQL Server are ORDBMS, and therefore IBM Informix btw.

+1
source

Here is the oracle page covering objects, Constructor Methods, and Object Comparison.
And an introduction to Oracle Objects

0
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1307618/


All Articles