# Moving from O.R.M. to O

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moving-from-o-r-m-to-o/157115>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [January 7, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moving-from-o-r-m-to-o/157115 "2009-01-07T14:05:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joran)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moving-from-o-r-m-to-o/157115/1 "2009-01-07T14:05:14Z")

</div>

Hi,

I was reading some more Martin F. just now and then it hit me:

Rails spends a lot of time on Object Relational Mapping.

What if we could just skip that step and go straight to Object?

Best Regards

Joran

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joran)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moving-from-o-r-m-to-o/157115/2 "2009-01-07T14:22:16Z")

</div>

that’s an old discussion. ooDBMS vs rDBMS. main argument for rDBMS  
(and therefore ORM) is, that these systems are widely spread (mySQL,  
postreSQL, …). another point IMHO is, that most people are just used  
to rDBMS and want to keep on using them. maybe with rails3 you can  
switch between systems more easily.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joran)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moving-from-o-r-m-to-o/157115/3 "2009-01-07T14:51:32Z")

</div>

MaD wrote:

> that’s an old discussion. ooDBMS vs rDBMS. main argument for rDBMS  
> (and therefore ORM) is, that these systems are widely spread (mySQL,  
> postreSQL, …). another point IMHO is, that most people are just used  
> to rDBMS and want to keep on using them. maybe with rails3 you can  
> switch between systems more easily.

Actually ooDBMS and rDBMS are not the only two options. I’ve been  
thinking about this issue a lot myself, and I know I’m not the only one.  
There is a third option, which definitely look promising. I am speaking  
of Document Oriented Databases such as CouchDB. There is already a lot  
of work being done to integrate Rails with CouchDB.

Find out more here:  
[http://couchdb.apache.org/](http://couchdb.apache.org/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@joran](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joran)\
**Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moving-from-o-r-m-to-o/157115/4 "2009-01-07T14:34:39Z")

</div>

The reason is not that they’re widely spread, have you tried to run a  
query against such tools? Have you ever tried to generatea report?  
Have you ever had to shard or get them to work on a master/slave  
setup?

OODMBS are still too naive for real use, at least when you need more  
than just “store” data.

- 

Maurício Linhares  
[http://alinhavado.wordpress.com/](http://alinhavado.wordpress.com/) (pt-br) | [http://blog.codevader.com/](http://blog.codevader.com/)  
(en)