Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 1
    database and storage can't really be used interchangeably. A database is a type of storage, but a file systems is certainly not a type of database Commented Mar 15, 2013 at 15:57
  • 3
    "storage" is where bits and bytes are held. A database does not necessarily use files on a file system. A file system is most definitely a type of database in the strictest sense of the term. Commented Mar 15, 2013 at 15:59
  • 7
    For someone who is arguing that there's no use in databases when they're alternative is to use a database; yes. It seems helpful to explain to them that their argument is based on a preconceived notion that is wrong. Once they have a better understanding of their initial situation we can help them move forward with more complete understanding of available technologies. File systems are hierarchical databases, there's good reasons relation and object database systems have supplanted them as faster, better organized, and more efficient data storage/retrieval. Commented Mar 15, 2013 at 17:10
  • 3
    @Gaz_Edge The data is already in an inefficient "database" of sorts by being stored in a bunch of files whose structure and content are both managed by the OP's application. Trying to get the OP to understand and accept that is a useful first step to getting them to understand the use case for a "real" database system; once they understand that a "database" of some kind is happening anyway, it's easier to start talking about where a properly structured and managed service is more efficient than letting the app do its own thing. I'd suggest this answer does help, very much so. Commented Mar 17, 2013 at 10:29