[MUD-Dev] Re: Databases

[Sellers]

Greg Miller wrote:
> "T. Alexander Popiel" wrote:
> > >From: Charles Hughes <charles.hughes at bigfoot.com>
> > >At the risk of being slapped by a mackerel, who here really thinks they
> > >can do a better database design than those afforded by the likes of the
> > >free or commercial databases?  [I'll ask those here who've actually
> > >worked on these databases not to chime in. :)]
> > 
> > For the limited problem set of a MUD world, yes, I think that I can
> > design a better database than one of the free or commercial ones.
> 
> Commercial databases do lots of nice things, but there's a reason why
> sites running heavy-duty databases of the likes of eBay and Amazon don't
> use commercial packages.

I don't think this is true.  I don't know about Amazon, but I *believe* eBay
uses Oracle -- and I know for a fact that many very high volume sites do.
Oracle is about as bullet-proof as you're going to get for large, complex
apps, and more versatile and applicable than this thread has made it seem.  

> > synchronization of the database, for instance).  Because of this
> > variability, I strongly believe that there is no one right solution
> > to the MUD database design problem, and moreover that the extant
> > commercial and free databases don't come even close to providing
> > what most MUDs need.
> 
> [quoted for no other reason than the simple fact that I agree]

Maybe I've missed it, but what is it that "most MUDs need" that a commercial
(admittedly often expensive) database package doesn't provide?  

Mike Sellers



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev