![cdr dicom sql server lost cdr dicom sql server lost](https://img.informer.com/screenshots/227/227302_1.jpg)
Now you at least have my apology and an explanation of a central thing I found unfair in your critique and got triggered by. If you don’t want to spend more energy on this, it’s fine. This study suggests that the tested XML database configurations without further optimizations are not suitable as persistence mechanism for openEHR-based systems in production if population-wide ad hoc querying is needed.” This is how the “conclusion” section and the whole paper ends: “For individual focused clinical queries where patient ID was specified the response times were acceptable.
![cdr dicom sql server lost cdr dicom sql server lost](https://pattersonsupport.custhelp.com/euf/assets/Digital/22978/22978_6.jpg)
I think you claimed the paper concludes things it does not, that’s why I asked you to re-read it and to specify if something was wrong in the conclusions. You wrote “he concluded things about XML databases had many short comings” and yes that actually triggered me since the paper, even though hampered by the short number of pages allowed, still is fairly careful and specific about what limited things can be concluded from the research. Most of my questions were serious though.
![cdr dicom sql server lost cdr dicom sql server lost](https://www.cdroller.com/img/main_win_2.png)
I understand that for example the “…or did you just look at the graphs” and similar thinigs can be provoking, sorry about that and whatever else in my response that annoyed you.