Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

"Corey Brown" <corey_at_spectrumsoftware.net> wrote in message news:<AO2Cb.62$C24.51_at_bignews5.bellsouth.net>...

> > I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
> > BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.
>
> Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models but
> about physical implementations. No one is confusing the two except for
> you.

This is the original question:

"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody help me with this?"

It is crystal clear. Isn't it?

> > You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
> > levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.
>
> Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
> differences
> between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
> differences
> between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations, at least I have, you seem
> to be reading from a different hymnal.

Each OODBMS and each SQL DBMS may have a different implementation technology, so what you say does not make sense.

> > If the new approach is better in all situations then the old approach
> > is not useful anymore.
>
> I completely disagree. Have you given up the land line in your house
> just because cell phones are considered better technology?

Bad example. Land lines have many advantages over cell phones.

> Have you
> switched from antenna and or cable to satellite because HDTV is
> available. Will those technologies eventually eclipse older ones, you
> bet, but not over night.

Another bad example. HDTV is possible and avaiable with cable and antenna.

> > Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.
>
> Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.

This is in contradiction with your posts.

> See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
> A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
> cannot
> dispose religion with technological fact.

I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.

> > The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
> > appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.
>
> Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
> in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
> are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.

If the flaws are solved, then the inferior approach hasn't anything to do. Inferior approaches are dead ends.

> > The complexity plays against the network approach.
>
> of interconnections between them (mesh network). The only way
> we could meet the requirement, while using a relational database
> as the underlying data store, was to build out a network representation
> of the network in memory first.

Due to the flaws of the SQL DBMS implementation. BTW SQL DBMSes can't be considered as truly RDBMSes.

> Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
> out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.

And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide physical independence. You would have the same performance or better, ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model. That is what I am trying to say all the time.

> > No, but if the new technology is actually better we should stop making
> > traditional cars.
>
> Agreed, but again reality gets in the way. There are certain classes of
> vehicles that do not lend themselves well to hybrid power plants.

So they are not better in all circumstances. So it was a bad analogy because it is proven that The Relational Model is superior to the network approach in all means.

> > And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.
>
> Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?

Why?

Which euphemism do you like?

> We are all ignorant about a
> great many things

Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.

>, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because


> you

>     can't build jet engines do you?



I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Fri Dec 12 2003 - 17:26:30 CET