Re: relational tables and objects

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_nospam_ncs.es>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:13:35 GMT
Message-ID: <3dc28c0d.8727269_at_news.wanadoo.es>


On 31 Oct 2002 23:44:51 +0100, hidders_at_REMOVE.THIS.uia.ua.ac.be (Jan Hidders) wrote:

>>The relational model is the best known form for representing and
>>manipulating data.
>
>It is? Gee, I guess we then better give a call to Donald Knuth and tell him
>to rewrite his "The Art of Computer Programming" books. :-)

It is obvious that I mean it is the best known form for representing and manipulating data at logical level. Because the relational model only has sense at logical level.

Knuth's algorithms and data structures are for the physical level.

>>The relational model was not designed for hard disks nor RAM. It is a
>>logical model.
>
>Indeed, a logical model for large shared data banks. There was a reason why
>Codd chose that title.

But you can construct shared data banks with RAM, tapes, punched cards, etc.

RAM based shared data banks are viable with actual technologies and prices, and are increasing its popularity.

>>Performance and the relational model are independent. A main memory
>>relational DBMS may perform as fast as any kind of main memory DBMS.
>
>Sure. But the relevant question here is if you need a DBMS, whatever the
>type. Not every application needs a DBMS.

But you questioned the performance of relational data management libraries.

Even if you don't share data, the relational model may be very useful if the implementations performs well).

For instance:

Select Coordinates from MutantMonsters where Distance < MachineGunRange and not HasHostages :-)

Alfredo Received on Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:13:35 CET

Original text of this message