Re: SQL and Google (was: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Alistair <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700
On 17 Sep, 02:51, "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Robert" <n...@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iu3re35hkgn0ftltl8th3lvis4pr3pmojs@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:59:05 -0500, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>"Charles Hottel" <chot...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the situations I am familiar with, traditional mainframe databases blow
the doors off SQL type approaches. Whoever designed SQL must have
been entirely clueless, or indifferent, to machine efficiency.
Everyone who's run a Google search knows that to be untrue. It displays the
time it spent
searching three billion Web pages. I just did it with four wildcard words --
"for * * nail
the * was lost". It found 27,000 in .08 seconds. That's fast!
Serious question: Do Google searches actually use SQL "under the covers"? I
always assumed (with no evidence to back this up) that they used a "proprietary"
system that didn't use any standard (SQL or otherwise) selection facility.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
And do Google searches search web pages? My understanding was that
they search indices extracted from web pages.
.
- References:
- COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Charles Hottel
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: Robert
- SQL and Google (was: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- From: William M. Klein
- COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Prev by Date: Re: [OT] Iraq
- Next by Date: Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL and Google (was: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL and DB2 vs. Java and DB2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|