Re: DB clasical structure violation

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>
> In article <3D117C1B.6621_at_ix.netcom.com>, Lee Fesperman
> <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com> writes
> >I'll ask you one question --- are you also researching the performance impact of
> >the
> >additional constraints required when you denormalize the database structures?
> >Or, in
> >changing the structure are you ignoring the effects on the integrity of your
> >data? A
> >database that can't be trusted is worthless.
>
> I'll ask you one question - are you jumping to conclusions? ...
>
> I would suggest the OP investigate Multi-Value (or Network, or
> hierarchical, etc - basically something that's NOT an *R*DBMS).

And why would you suggest defective technology that was discarded 20 years ago?

> The databases I work with are NOT 3NF, but will quite happily maintain
> integrity provided they're defined properly - delete an object and all
> related data disappears with it, and you can't assign values to
> attributes without declaring the object they belong too.

They're not even 1NF if they are 'Multi-Value'.

Referential integrity is but one part of integrity constraints.

> People today assume DBMS == RDBMS, and that's a pretty stupid assumption
> to make ...

Perhaps, but you've certainly demonstrated your lack of knowledge of database basics.

-- 
Lee Fesperman, FirstSQL, Inc. (http://www.firstsql.com)
==============================================================
* The Ultimate DBMS is here!
* FirstSQL/J Object/Relational DBMS  (http://www.firstsql.com)