Mumps M/DB and M/DBX

View: New views
4 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Mumps M/DB and M/DBX

by Kunthar :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

I'd really appreciated to get pros and cons, if anyone used before
those DB types.
What you think about GT.M and extended clone of M/DB?


http://www.mgateway.com/
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mdb-community-forum
http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/FNFIS/Markets/NonfinancialIndustries/Healthcare/gtm/

Peace
\|/ Kunth

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org


Re: Mumps M/DB and M/DBX

by Viktor Sovietov :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi Knuth

MUMPS concept is really powerful, but the good part of this power
exists because MUMPS interpreter is the part of DB engine and MUMPS
code is able to operate with native datastructures without any
transformations (like marshalling/unmarshalling). MUMPS databases are
fast and very scalable, but IMHO it would be difficult to avoid
dramatic drop of performance on bridge between Erlang and MUMPS.
Unfortunately.
Some time ago I tried to create Erlang/OTP-based replacement for MUMPS
with using tuples and lists to represent hierarchical index, but it
seemed that no one was interested to use such database.

Sincerely,

--Victor


On Jul 4, 1:59 am, Kunthar <kunt...@...> wrote:

> I'd really appreciated to get pros and cons, if anyone used before
> those DB types.
> What you think about GT.M and extended clone of M/DB?
>
> http://www.mgateway.com/http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mdb-community-forumhttp://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/FNFIS/Markets/NonfinancialIndustr...
>
> Peace
> \|/ Kunth
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list. Seehttp://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org


Re: Mumps M/DB and M/DBX

by andrey-google :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi,
MUMPS is very powerful. We use it in conjunction with Erlang.
Architecture is {Web application -> Erlang middleware -> MUMPS}. In
fact, we use MUMPS from Intersystems Cache DB, but it is quite the same
as GT.M. I can't remember any cons, it really save much time for us.
Both MUMPS (especially Cache) and Erlang complement each other quite
well. Perhaps, you have more concrete questions?

Andrew
 

Kunthar wrote:

> I'd really appreciated to get pros and cons, if anyone used before
> those DB types.
> What you think about GT.M and extended clone of M/DB?
>
>
> http://www.mgateway.com/
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mdb-community-forum
> http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/FNFIS/Markets/NonfinancialIndustries/Healthcare/gtm/
>
> Peace
> \|/ Kunth
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
>
>
>  


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org


Re: Mumps M/DB and M/DBX

by Kunthar :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Let me be more specific then :)

1. Seems it supports ACID, is this clear?
2. What about transaction speed? Any benchmarks would be cool.
3. Is Erlang Middleware is also shareable like new M/DB or should i
need to dig in myself?
4. How scalable is?
5. Is this support like multidimensional array data types?
6. How painful to/from convert data types of Erlang?

Peace
\|/ Kunthar


On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Andrew<buricchio@...> wrote:

> Hi,
> MUMPS is very powerful. We use it in conjunction with Erlang. Architecture
> is {Web application -> Erlang middleware -> MUMPS}. In fact, we use MUMPS
> from Intersystems Cache DB, but it is quite the same as GT.M. I can't
> remember any cons, it really save much time for us. Both MUMPS (especially
> Cache) and Erlang complement each other quite well. Perhaps, you have more
> concrete questions?
>
> Andrew
>
>
> Kunthar wrote:
>>
>> I'd really appreciated to get pros and cons, if anyone used before
>> those DB types.
>> What you think about GT.M and extended clone of M/DB?
>>
>>
>> http://www.mgateway.com/
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mdb-community-forum
>>
>> http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/FNFIS/Markets/NonfinancialIndustries/Healthcare/gtm/
>>
>> Peace
>> \|/ Kunth
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org