April 6, 2006
Oracle is getting touchy about XML
From Barbara Darrow’s “Unblog”:
“How we store XML on the database is, excuse me, none of your business. The point is you can write an app using XML standards,” said Mark Drake, manager of product management for XML technology for the Redwood Shores, Calif. vendor.
“Whether we shred it, parse it, it doesn’t matter. There is no such thing as a native XML storage model, there is no W3c standard or 11th stone tablet, telling us how,” he noted.
So implementation doesn’t matter? I.e., performance doesn’t matter?
That’s not generally Oracle’s viewpoint in areas where it has a performance or implementation advantage, or even parity …
Comments
4 Responses to “Oracle is getting touchy about XML”
Leave a Reply
[…] As for Oracle — well, right now Oracle has a bit of a competitive problem … • • • […]
The whole point is performance does matter. And one binary storage model for XML (IBM, MSFT etc) cannot deliver the
flexibility required to ensure that your XML application will perform. There are so many different ways in which XML is
used by applicaitons that the only way to ensure that theses application perform is for the database vendor to offer
multiple storage models. Oracle is the only vendor to offer that.
Mark,
I find that comment quite surprising and confusing. Would you please explain?
If I recall correctly, Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft all offer some form of XML shredding. Oracle and Microsoft also offer BLOB/CLOB XML storage, with Microsoft’s XML indexing scheme for those CLOBs apparently being more sophisticated than Oracle’s. IBM, in lieu of (I think not “in addition to”, but I could be wrong) BLOB/CLOB storage, offers a separate-but-integrated engine.
What exactly is the nature of the superiority you are claiming for Oracle?
CAM
[…] DB2, Microsoft SQL Server, and Oracle added XML capabilities around the middle of the last […]