<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Some Changes to OSM: Technical Details</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/04/some-changes-to-osm-technical-details/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/04/some-changes-to-osm-technical-details/</link>
	<description>Obligatory WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:46:17 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Administrator of OSMonetDB</title>
		<link>http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/04/some-changes-to-osm-technical-details/comment-page-1/#comment-1700</link>
		<dc:creator>Administrator of OSMonetDB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/?p=149#comment-1700</guid>
		<description>The rationale for the move to MonetDB are the reported problems in scaling up to sizes needed to support OSM as explained in this blog. It is not a secret that the man power required for database management is big, and the available man power small. We are indeed happy we could relief TomH from the firefighting[1] due to the self-organising database management MonetDB brings us.

In the last big comparison in 2008 we already reported significant differences[2] on large scale implementations using other Open Source databases such as PostgreSQL and MySQL.

Most of the people working on the development of MonetDB have MSc and PhD level academic education, likewise for another big search-company, while we are still actively publishing about new databases and query techniques.

[1]http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.performance?hl=en
[2]http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The rationale for the move to MonetDB are the reported problems in scaling up to sizes needed to support OSM as explained in this blog. It is not a secret that the man power required for database management is big, and the available man power small. We are indeed happy we could relief TomH from the firefighting[1] due to the self-organising database management MonetDB brings us.</p>
<p>In the last big comparison in 2008 we already reported significant differences[2] on large scale implementations using other Open Source databases such as PostgreSQL and MySQL.</p>
<p>Most of the people working on the development of MonetDB have MSc and PhD level academic education, likewise for another big search-company, while we are still actively publishing about new databases and query techniques.</p>
<p>[1]http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.performance?hl=en<br />
[2]http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
