| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving
Firstly, thanks, Paul for non-polemic reasoning, and for explaining one
difference between the way relational and [Pick] dbs's treat data. It's
interesting (and surprisingly fuzzy, using "democracy" and lack of
parent-child constraints as a paradigm,) but no less an important
theoretical point. From a *practical* viewpoint, having been in the
systems and applications trenches long enough, using Pick, not sure it's
important enough...ie, the need in Pick of having to establish a
master-slave relationship among the data is both convenient and models
the real world; it does not *necesarily* constrain you from viewing the
data on a level, "democratic" field, though I will concede that there
may be efficiency problems. As always, good design will triumph over
most odds.
It's obvious that there is not a lot of academic writing about Pick; for the most part it has been ignored by theorists. As one steeped in theory through my academic years, I've never shed any tears over this; but it's equally obvious that trying to explain the model to those who look at the world through a relational lens is difficult at best. Others in this thread have suggested downloading a copy of a Picklike and using it; I suggest that's difficult; using a db without a set of gui/rad tools fresh out of the box is a good road to frustration and failure. This is not, of course any fundamental criticism of the Pick model, but of the marketing effort it engenders, lukewarm at best.
It's late and I no idea whether these are known to anyone or everyone, but I remember this, commissioned by Unidata, now an IBM db: maybe it's of use?
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/u2/pubs/whitepapers/nested_rdbms.pdf
Abstract
This paper discusses technical advances represented by nested relational
database technology. The focus is the removal of the requirement that
relational databases conform to the first normal form (atomic
attributes) and the advantages thereof. Such databases are technically
called nonfirst-normal-form (NF2) databases, but are commonly referred
to as nested or extended relational databases.
We explain the differences between traditional relational databases and
the IBM nested relational databases (principally the ability to nest
tables and store complex data structures). We then outline the
implications of this advanced technology for the user of relational
databases. We conclude by answering questions that are frequently asked
about nested relational databases. We provide an extensive bibliography
of published material concerning nested relational databases.
We also have:
http://www.prelude.com/white_papers/multidimensionalwhitepaper.doc.
Not exactly academic, but...
Quote from Codd, 1993[ellipis in original, caveat emptor] "The relational dbms...were never intended to provide the very powerful functions for data synthesis, analyis and consolidation that are being defined as multidimensional databases."
Chandru Murthi
Paul Vernon wrote:
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_iserv.net> wrote in message
> news:6db906b2.0310191644.13b47642_at_posting.google.com...
> [snip]
>
>>While this is not an academic statement of why PICK works nicely, it >>might give some hints on why folks who have put their dollars into the >>SQL-based RDBMS world can become born-again when they see the >>difference in dollars needed for a comparable PICK system.
>>Again, it is not that PICK is flawless (by any stretch), but as a >>basis for moving forward, I'd sure rather start with this big bang for >>the buck implementation than any SQL-based RDBMS I've seen. And, yes, >>I know this is a theory forum and not necessarily for opinions based >>on practice, so I'll go back to the claim, even though not fleshed >>out, that persisting data based on language -- such as modeling entire >>propositions together rather than piecing them apart to the extent >>done in an RDBMS -- makes sense because we are not trying to persist >>mathematical relations ultimately -- we are trying to persist >>propositions.
>>For example, "Jane Doe has three kids -- John, George, & Paul -- and >>also three cars -- a 1967 Mustang Fastback and a 1968 VW Bug, but the >>car she usually drives is her other car -- a 2002 Ford Thunderbird". >>A lousy sentence, but easy to image on a form. This sentence/form is >>about a single person -- Jane Doe
>>and would all be filed in a single >>"folder" in PICK except, possibly, for code files used for validation >>-- there could be a code file for makes & models of cars. >>Depending on the application, it might make sense to have 4 "forms" in >>this folder -- one for each person: Jane and each of her kids or we >>might decide it isn't important to treat the kids as separate "filed" >>persons in our system at this point. If they are filed as separate >>people, then the Jane Doe record (form/document/proposition) would >>have a multivalued foreign key (pointer) to each of the child >>(literally!) records, else it would store the actual data, such as >>first names of each child. >> >>Playing the game with language to parse it out, split it into many >>fragments (often based on the nouns) for the purpose of storing it, >>only to need to retrieve it again as a whole, doesn't gain us >>anything, on the face of it.
>>[I understand the purpose is to be able to provide a simple language >>that enforces various data constraints, but I think that purpose is >>somewhat flawed too. Protecting data is a noble goal -- controlling >>data and programmers with fixed, global constraints isn't necessarily >>the best way to lend such protection in my opinion, but that's a >>tangent to this post, so later on that.]
 |
 |