|
I've seen tables much, much bigger than that storing XML. And sometimes, you just need to store XML without knowing anything about the structure of it, like if it comes from another system and you need it verbatim.
Most interesting approach I've seen is not to use a native XML type, but to compress it to binary, then convert that to base64 and store that in nvarchar columns. Which drowns everything in zeros and probably makes things bigger than storing native, with the added benefit that its practically impossible to query.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: But the core software is built on a third party product that puts everything in XML because that way its, um, extensible!!!
Isn't that the definition of persisted object stores (ie NoSQL)?
Marc Clifton wrote: To me, that just seems in[s]ane.
Just not well thought out. But something that follows naturally for over enthusiasm for new technology (not blaming XML but rather that it was 'new' and thus used.)
Marc Clifton wrote: And this isn't the only table that contains these XML blobs,
Could be worse...could be invalid or even ill-formed xml.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: ill-formed xml
No such thing.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: No such thing.
Not sure what you mean but I dealt with ill formed xml many times.
Both in preventing it and in trying to parse data from something that had been created incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
|
If it isn't well-formed, it isn't XML.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I worked in the real world where things are not perfect but for which I still must create solutions.
And something that looks like 'xml' and which everyone else from the current developers and the external service provider refers to as 'xml' is in fact xml to me as a relevant term to apply to it to avoid confusion. Regardless of whether it is valid or not. Being a professional I will be sure to note in the code that it is not valid and as such the code I wrote to deal with it was needed.
|
|
|
|
|
"valid" is another matter altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: "valid" is another matter altogether.
Being pedantic doesn't change what I said. I have written a lot of code which both validates whether xml is ill-formed and valid such as via XSD/DTD validation and business validation. And I have written and maintained XSDs for years as well.
But none of that changes the meaning of my previous post. Nor that my goal is to deliver business solutions not idealism.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Just not well thought out. But something that follows naturally for over enthusiasm for new technology (not blaming XML but rather that it was 'new' and thus used.)
I remember a project in Germany where 'everything had to be in XML'. It was not overzealous engineers, but marketing that drove this madness. I'm sure today they are in 'blockchain' up to their elbows.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen technology driven by the market demands.
But to be fair I think that is a more legitimate reason versus some single developer claiming that technology X will be used because it is 'better' or because it is a 'solution' to a business need.
|
|
|
|
|
The gun shop where I work uses a specialized product for sales and gun tracking, and lately it's been crashing and losing indices several times daily. I just discovered that this state-of-the-art system is based on a Visual FoxPro database! 
How many other products out there are still using long obsolete technologies, I wonder? I've still got a copy of Paradox, if anyone needs it... 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps they just did not understood the essence of a 3rd party software 'putting everything into XML' is to connect it to a queue and process messages with a middleware on the other side, storing everything to standard relational database? 
|
|
|
|
|
[Edited to avoid enraging the Britishers]
There's much to be had, at the the timber shop. (5, 3)
Answer was "Great Deal"
I'll post today's shortly.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
modified 6-Dec-17 4:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
Gotten? Any chance of speaking modern English? 
|
|
|
|
|
Why do Britishers hate the use of the word gotten so much? Just because it's more commonly used in North America? I'm from this side of the Atlantic and I don't consider it an abomination. In some situations it is much clearer than the potential alternatives.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably because it reminds us of having to suffer Shakespere at school.
|
|
|
|
|
 I just say...
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Mel Padden wrote: Why do Britishersnone Americans hate the use of the word gotten so much?
It's also a trigger word that sets our resident CanAussien off (the Maunder man himself).
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Got vs. gotten - Grammarist[^]
Quote: The vehemence of some Britons’ scorn for gotten likely has to do with the fact that it has gained ground in British English over the last couple of decades. Many English speakers from outside North America resist the encroachment of so-called Americanisms (many of which, like gotten, are not actually American in origin) on their versions of English, and, for mysterious reasons, some feel especially strongly about gotten.
Sounds like you're just being childish...
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, we just know how thin skinned Americans are and how easy you are to wind up. It's all a massive conspiracy by the rest of the English speaking world.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Nah, we just know how thin skinned Americans are and how easy you are to wind up.
So you fake being thin skinned and wound up about our use of "gotten" to get under our skin and wind us up.
Gotcha! 
|
|
|
|
|
Shhh. Don't tell anyone. We really don't care otherwise.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, sorry.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
