At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
In a way yes, because all your (email) information is stored at google's datacenter and you can access it anywhere in the world just by logging in you user name and password
to say the least
It also contains all of the images stored by cameras around the world that it has used to put together Google Earth. So, ya.
Just to be clear, Google Earth uses images licensed to Google by Teleatlas, a subsidiary of TomTom. Only the Street View images belong to Google. What do you mean by data warehouse? Google uses enormous databases and sophisticated technology to provide services based on them, but the scale and complexity are relative. Most sites do the same thing on a smaller scale. Google does store data longer than many people are entirely comfortable with, but it doesn't openly sell it, like Facebook or Experian do, so I don't know exactly what you would define Google as. I think 'data warehouse' is a difficult thing to define.
The term data warehousing has a specific meaning in relational databases. I'm not sure where else it would be used. As far as google, the website being a data warehouse, that would kind of depend on how they implement their system, which I'm sure is proprietary information and thus can't really be answered directly.
Google use BigTable which is object oriented and works by only every querying indexes. If you don't have the right indexes, it fails. But it's clever how they make that work. You can learn a fair bit about it by looking at App Engine and the Datastore, but the Google internals are, obviously, not open source. @lando I didn't know that. I never had a need to work with a relational database, strange as that must seem to people brought up on them, I just use objects. It's the way I learnt to do it and it just seems like way things are going. I've only been programming a couple of years so I'm not the most experienced guy in the world.
I'm not sure which databases use object, I've never seen them used particularly effectively, but there may be new technology that I am unaware of. If you can point me to some implementations I'll be glad to take a look. Actually, for me, I was brought up on flat files, relational databases happened years after I started working on databases, but they seem to work pretty well. I've been using Oracle, MySQL, etc for years now. Gotta study DB2 a bit more. If you can point out a database that uses objects i would be much obliged.
Well, App Engine obviously, but there are many smaller implementations. I think if you're building anything serious at the moment, you use a relational, but I think Google's approach is where we'll end up. They adopted it because relational databases scale inefficiently beyond a certain point. I'm not at all qualified to assert that OODBs Are The Future, I was just really saying that I won't put too much time into relational databases unless I have a direct need to know how they work. I can get the same functionality without all that.
You're obviously a pretty experienced guy, I don't want to come across as though I'm telling you your job, I was just posted my view. Again, I've not been programming long and will maybe change my tune over time. I'm open to that. I just like Datastore, it's more abstract and I'm a Python guy ~ I like abstract.
Heh, you don't have to worry about my feelings, I'm just talking and the point here is to share information. If I'm wrong, I have no problems admitting it. In the case of storing objects, I don't have a lot of information and I have to go research it before I can comment properly on it. So that is why I ask, so that I can go learn. Whether or not your right or wrong doesn't matter too much as long as we both learn and in the end come to a consensus. As far as being wrong goes, the only people that are never wrong are the ones that don't do anything. The fact is that the more you do the more mistakes you make, the trick is to learn from those mistakes and continue. Consider that the person that never writes a program has never had a programming bug vs say Linus writing Linux has had so many bugs they are uncountable.
As far as object databases are concerned, I don't see the necessary advantages over relational databases. Databases of these sorts store objects rather than information that can be sorted and searched upon. They are primarily concerned with persistence and not focused on locating information nor of recombining information into new forms. Although it is helpful for the storage of objects as a whole, this is more a system of looking up information in a file system than a database where data can be recombined, extracted and manipulated to give the correct information. Am I missing something? I'm not sure that I understand what you are trying to convey.
You're make some good points about being willing to make mistakes and how it's a good thing, so long as you're willing to learn from them, I agree totally with that. On databases. You can query an OODB no less effectively than a relational if you build your DB right. It's a different approach with its own strengths and weaknesses, but I'm not really in a position to compare the two properly. It's worth remembering that, as far as I'm aware, Google Search queries are performed on an OODB. You can certainly get the same functionality from either approach, you just go about scripting it a bit differently.
So what your saying is that you can query on any part of an object? For instance if you have a customer record which is stored as an object you can query for all customers that are in a particular city or zip code?