Re: The Fact of relational algebra (was Re: Clean Object Class Design -- What is it?)
Date: 10 Sep 2001 13:53:02 -0700
"Patrick Logan" <patrickdlogan_at_home.com> wrote in message news:<dQTm7.58645$MK5.32433547_at_news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote
> in message news:cd3b3cf.0109091620.5d5379f_at_posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > It is true that relational dbmses are much more effective than dbmses
> > > > based on any other known logical data model...
> > > > It is true that relational dbmses will perform better overall than
> > > > non-relational dbmses, but that performance benefit includes
> > > > application development time, facility of schema evolution etc.
> > >
> > > Those are fairly broad, ill-defined claims. I find it difficult to
> > > that they are always "true". Could you please clarify?
> > I cannot do justice to over thirty years of theory, research and
> > empirical measurements in a usenet message. I am afraid you will have
> > to educate yourself at your own expense.
> Then can you point me to the references that explicitly make these two
> I consider myself fairly well read in the related literature. I
> cannot recall one peer-reviewed report that makes or substantiates
> these two claims.
> Since you at least repeat the claims, I assume you have access to the
> specific body of evidence. Please pass them along specifically to save
> the rest of us some time.
As I indicated above, thirty years of theory, research and empirical measurements collectively support the claim. No single report can do the entire body of work justice. I am afraid you will have to educate yourself at your own expense.
As just one indicator among many, I observe that in 1970 navigational dmbses had 100% of the world market for dbms products. What market share would you estimate they have now? How has CODASYL revolutionized database management? Received on Mon Sep 10 2001 - 22:53:02 CEST