Re: DB clasical structure violation

"Anthony Youngman" <anthony.youngman_at_eca-international.com> wrote in message news:2c63b9ee.0206250542.3bfb03aa_at_posting.google.com...
> Lee Fesperman <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<3D17D7CD.230C_at_ix.netcom.com>...
> > Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> Why, then, are Oracle and Microsoft busy copying the features that
> we've had for thirty years, and adding them to their databases? Are
> you saying that they're busy adding square wheels?

I did not see a response from Lee regarding this. Yes, they are adding square wheels and triangular wheels and rectangular wheels and all kinds of useless or even harmful features recently.

> Why did IBM spend all that money on Informix? It may be rumour, but as
> far as we can make out the bulk of the "value" that IBM saw in
> Informix was in the fact that it owned two MultiValue databases.

I'm pretty certain the "value" is in the customer list.

> And lastly, why does all the evidence I know about point to the fact
> that, for the same amount of data, a multi-value database will do the
> job quicker, cheaper, and use less hardware.

What evidence is that?

> As I see it, the current status of databases can be summed up in one
> word - "buzzworditis". If it doesn't do SQL it must be old-hat. Never
> mind that set theory is just that - THEORY!

Never mind that arithmetic is just theory, or that classical mechanics is just theory, or that relativistic and quantum mechanics are just theories, or that nuclear physics is just theory, or that push-down automata is just theory etc. etc. etc.

I still choose to use arithmetic to verify the accuracy of my paycheck, classical mechanics to stop my car, quantum mechanics to operate the transistors in my computer, nuclear physics to light my home, push-down automata to compile programs

Only a complete ignoramus would dismiss theory-based artifacts on their basis in theory.

> Never mind that other
> forms of database are provably better in many circumstances.

Really? Prove it.

> The MV engine allows you to program as if you had a relational
> database, or a tree database, or a hierarchical database or whatever.

Since hierarchical databases and network databases complicate programming without adding any compensatory benefit, it would be foolish to think this is advantageous.

> And I would strongly advise that a programmer should know those
> theories.

Neither hierarchies nor networks are theories per se, which shows how little you actually know about the topic. They are simply possible structures in graph theory. Received on Sat Jul 13 2002 - 04:52:38 CEST