3 ms·

Mike Stonebraker started Ingres to build a relational database. After Ingres, he and Larry Rowe wanted to see what could be done to add the OO aspect and other

by ww520 9y ago

Mike Stonebraker started Ingres to build a relational database. After Ingres, he and Larry Rowe wanted to see what could be done to add the OO aspect and other complex data types in addition to the relational model; OO was starting to take off back then. They started the Postgres project (Post-Ingres) in UCB to research on object-relational database. It turned out the object-relational part was better done on the client side, evidenced with the legions of client side object-relational libraries. The relational part sticks around and becomes the better part of the PostgreSQL database. Edit: the object part was to build complex data types from simple type in the relational model, and had the database to manage the storage and querying of the complex object. E.g. build Location object from (x: int, y: int), and array of Location[].

e12e 9y ago
I'll note that postgres is (sort-of) a storage option for one of the (rather) early object databases, the much maligned, yet perhaps under-used zodb: http://www.zodb.org/ http://www.zodb.org/ Still evolving in its old age, along with postgres: http://www.newtdb.org/en/latest/how-it-works.html http://www.newtdb.org/en/latest/how-it-works.html Other than that I'm aware of gemstone/s: https://gemtalksystems.com/products/gs64/ https://gemtalksystems.com/products/gs64/ Which can be paired with the maglev ruby implementation for similar (but presumably higher performing, more featurefull) experience with distributed objects in ruby: http://maglev.github.io/ http://maglev.github.io/ I suppose that with jsonb, and a node/js server, one could indeed argue that postgres is (again) an object oriented db - but I don't think anyone would push that argument too strongly.
snuxoll 9y ago
I suppose you could say Postgres did end up as an object-relational database still, composite UDT’s, array’s and domains are all features that match the original vision.
- pjungwir 9y ago
  I think that is a great way of thinking about it! Composite types and user-defined types are very useful and it makes sense to see them as inspired by object-oriented ideas.

by ww520 9y ago

e12e 9y ago

I'll note that postgres is (sort-of) a storage option for one of the (rather) early object databases, the much maligned, yet perhaps under-used zodb: http://www.zodb.org/ http://www.zodb.org/ Still evolving in its old age, along with postgres: http://www.newtdb.org/en/latest/how-it-works.html http://www.newtdb.org/en/latest/how-it-works.html Other than that I'm aware of gemstone/s: https://gemtalksystems.com/products/gs64/ https://gemtalksystems.com/products/gs64/ Which can be paired with the maglev ruby implementation for similar (but presumably higher performing, more featurefull) experience with distributed objects in ruby: http://maglev.github.io/ http://maglev.github.io/ I suppose that with jsonb, and a node/js server, one could indeed argue that postgres is (again) an object oriented db - but I don't think anyone would push that argument too strongly.

snuxoll 9y ago

I suppose you could say Postgres did end up as an object-relational database still, composite UDT’s, array’s and domains are all features that match the original vision.

pjungwir 9y ago
I think that is a great way of thinking about it! Composite types and user-defined types are very useful and it makes sense to see them as inspired by object-oriented ideas.