RDBMS to hold Perl objects?

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by J Krugman, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. J Krugman

    J Krugman Guest

    Is there a free RDBMS that can handle Perl objects?

    Thanks,

    jill
    J Krugman, Feb 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:00:16 +0000, J Krugman wrote:

    > Is there a free RDBMS that can handle Perl objects?


    DBD::SQLite
    (http://search.cpan.org/~msergeant/DBD-SQLite-0.29/lib/DBD/SQLite.pm)

    DBD::Sprite
    (http://search.cpan.org/~turnerjw/DBD-Sprite-0.47/lib/DBD/Sprite.pm)

    DBD::Trini (Pure Perl DBMS)
    (http://search.cpan.org/~miko/DBD-Trini-0.01/Trini.pm)

    These *may* be what you're looking for.

    HTH

    --
    Jim

    Copyright notice: all code written by the author in this post is
    released under the GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
    for more information.

    a fortune quote ...
    Kerr's Three Rules for a Successful College: Have plenty of
    football for the alumni, sex for the students, and parking for
    the faculty.
    James Willmore, Feb 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. J Krugman

    J Krugman Guest

    Many thanks!

    jill
    J Krugman, Feb 5, 2004
    #3
  4. J Krugman <> wrote in message news:<bvtlq0$cku$>...
    > Is there a free RDBMS that can handle Perl objects?


    Anything that can hold strings can hold the results of the Storable
    module (which ships with Perl now). I don't know of any slick
    implementations that allow you to transparently access the values
    without going back through Storable for full RDBMSes, but you can do
    quite a lot using MLDBM and MLDBM::Sync.

    Enjoy!
    Aaron Sherman, Feb 5, 2004
    #4
  5. J Krugman

    Robert Guest

    Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
    > If you want a free RDBMS, there's plenty. I recommend DBD::SQLite as
    > a serverless solution, or DBD::pg and PostgreSQL as a proper database.
    > Stay away from MySQL for new installations, no point in it anymore.
    >

    Simply wrong! Now once PG goes native on Windows THEN I see no point.
    Until then MySQL it is. Firebird is looking really good as well. ;-)

    Of course he didn't say a platform so the whole argument is a moot one.
    Robert, Feb 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Robert <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
    > > If you want a free RDBMS, there's plenty. I recommend DBD::SQLite as
    > > a serverless solution, or DBD::pg and PostgreSQL as a proper database.
    > > Stay away from MySQL for new installations, no point in it anymore.
    > >

    > Simply wrong! Now once PG goes native on Windows THEN I see no point.
    > Until then MySQL it is. Firebird is looking really good as well. ;-)


    Using google groups, so please understand I would have set a
    followup-to if I could :-(

    MySQL is the easiest database to maintain that I've ever used. It fits
    in with the UNIX Tao quite nicely and manages tables the way a UNIX
    admin would expect.

    This is in stark contrast to just about every other DB I've used, so I
    use MySQL pretty much exclusively (especially after having to install
    PostgreSQL once and having admined Oracle for a few years).

    PostgreSQL is a nice database, and I'm glad MySQL has competition that
    keeps it moving forward (as the PostgreSQL folks have had the same),
    but as soon as sub-selects appear in a stable release my last reason
    for considering anything else will evaporate (though if you need
    sub-selects, you probably have a serious problem with your data
    architecture in most cases).

    Back to Perl: you should be designing your code so that it will work
    with any back-end and carefully isolating database-specific features
    using your choice of abstraction model. MySQL is great for rapid
    prototyping, but in a produciton environment, you may find that you
    need certain performance tuning features more readily available in
    Oracle. Or you may find that you have to talk to an existing DB2
    back-end. Always best to modularize the back-end.
    Aaron Sherman, Feb 16, 2004
    #6
  7. J Krugman

    Guest

    Aaron Sherman <> wrote:
    > Robert <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
    >> > If you want a free RDBMS, there's plenty. I recommend DBD::SQLite as
    >> > a serverless solution, or DBD::pg and PostgreSQL as a proper database.
    >> > Stay away from MySQL for new installations, no point in it anymore.
    >> >

    >> Simply wrong! Now once PG goes native on Windows THEN I see no point.
    >> Until then MySQL it is. Firebird is looking really good as well. ;-)

    >
    > Using google groups, so please understand I would have set a
    > followup-to if I could :-(
    >
    > MySQL is the easiest database to maintain that I've ever used. It fits
    > in with the UNIX Tao quite nicely and manages tables the way a UNIX
    > admin would expect.


    I'd have to agree with Randall Schwartz on this one. (well, kind of anyhow..)

    Postgresql is better as a "proper database". Supports transactions, and as
    far as I know, always did. MySQL - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, you have
    to check to be sure.

    Transactional support is essential for any serious work.

    MySQL is nice when you have data that is almost always read-only, until it
    ships with transaction support enabled by default, AND mysql with
    transaction support is most common, I don't trust it. (maybe it's changed
    some since I last truly explored it)

    I'd much perfer mysql for an addressbook, but even a recipe collection could
    be riddled with issues, since the ingredients might be relational you could
    end up with missing parts. If the application has no real support for adding
    recipes, (Ie: it's added once or on occasion from a mirror or something, and
    you just need a web query interface then MySQL might be an ideal choice)

    Of course, mysql IS more common than postgresql. :-(

    Jamie
    , Feb 17, 2004
    #7
  8. J Krugman

    Robert Guest

    wrote:
    > Aaron Sherman <> wrote:
    >
    >>Robert <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >>
    >>>Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>If you want a free RDBMS, there's plenty. I recommend DBD::SQLite as
    >>>>a serverless solution, or DBD::pg and PostgreSQL as a proper database.
    >>>>Stay away from MySQL for new installations, no point in it anymore.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Simply wrong! Now once PG goes native on Windows THEN I see no point.
    >>>Until then MySQL it is. Firebird is looking really good as well. ;-)

    >>
    >>Using google groups, so please understand I would have set a
    >>followup-to if I could :-(
    >>
    >>MySQL is the easiest database to maintain that I've ever used. It fits
    >>in with the UNIX Tao quite nicely and manages tables the way a UNIX
    >>admin would expect.

    >
    >
    > I'd have to agree with Randall Schwartz on this one. (well, kind of anyhow..)
    >
    > Postgresql is better as a "proper database". Supports transactions, and as
    > far as I know, always did. MySQL - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, you have
    > to check to be sure.
    >
    > Transactional support is essential for any serious work.


    I would say that there are a whole bunch of sites currently on the
    Internet that would disagree with you.

    > MySQL is nice when you have data that is almost always read-only, until it
    > ships with transaction support enabled by default, AND mysql with
    > transaction support is most common, I don't trust it. (maybe it's changed
    > some since I last truly explored it)
    >
    > I'd much perfer mysql for an addressbook, but even a recipe collection could
    > be riddled with issues, since the ingredients might be relational you could
    > end up with missing parts. If the application has no real support for adding
    > recipes, (Ie: it's added once or on occasion from a mirror or something, and
    > you just need a web query interface then MySQL might be an ideal choice)
    >
    > Of course, mysql IS more common than postgresql. :-(
    >
    > Jamie


    It IS more common and it does better as a x-plaform solution. Postgresql
    is working on that. By that time though Firebird 1.5 will be out and I
    will be using it. It is a *proper* database and x-platform to boot.

    Robert
    Robert, Feb 17, 2004
    #8
  9. J Krugman

    Chris Guest

    Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

    > Stay away from MySQL for new installations, no point in it anymore.


    Because why? I'm really curious as to your reason for stating this like
    you did without at all implying that I disagree (since you mention
    PostgreSQL).

    Chris
    -----
    Chris Olive
    chris -at- --spammer-speed-bump-- technologEase -dot- com
    http://www.technologEase.com
    (pronounced "technologies")
    Chris, Feb 17, 2004
    #9
  10. J Krugman

    Chris Guest

    Robert wrote:
    > Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
    >
    >> If you want a free RDBMS, there's plenty. I recommend DBD::SQLite as
    >> a serverless solution, or DBD::pg and PostgreSQL as a proper database.
    >> Stay away from MySQL for new installations, no point in it anymore.
    >>

    > Simply wrong! Now once PG goes native on Windows THEN I see no point.
    > Until then MySQL it is. Firebird is looking really good as well. ;-)
    >
    > Of course he didn't say a platform so the whole argument is a moot one.


    Maybe it would be prudent to ask Randal why he said what he said rather
    than responding like this. Surely he has a good reason for saying so.
    It's not like Randal's some clueless newbie Perl poster... Since I've
    already asked him, maybe you would enjoy considering his reason(s) when
    he responds.

    I'm not sure how Firebird validates the existance of MySQL...?

    Chris
    -----
    Chris Olive
    chris -at- --spammer-speed-chump-- technologEase -dot- com
    http://www.technologEase.com
    (pronounced "technologies")
    Chris, Feb 17, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,240
    Phisiker
    May 13, 2009
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    494
    Ashish
    Jul 16, 2003
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    335
  4. kj
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    174
    Bob Walton
    Feb 4, 2004
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    125
    ccc31807
    Mar 5, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page