Re: foundations of relational theory?
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:37:54 -0400
Message-ID: <N4acndVecNz6FQuiU-KYlg_at_golden.net>
"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message
news:bn5s7p$1grg$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
> "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BhNnjiArEal$EwOo_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <bn33eu$12j0$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>, Paul Vernon
> > <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> writes
> > >"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_iserv.net> wrote in message
> > >news:6db906b2.0310202027.58324c36_at_posting.google.com...
> > >>
> > >> I'm likely just getting old, Paul, but I'm not tracking with you on
> > >> this question. What about my statement gives you a hint that if
> > >> everything else is equal then an MV system will be less useful and
> > >> just what is the everything else? You mean if someone has the same
> > >> number of dollars to sink into an MV syste as an RDBMS system, then
> > >> the MV system will be less useful? Why?
> > >
> > >Because a MV system is more complex (contains more constructs), for no
> extra
> > >power than a relational system.
> >
> > Except that we need far FEWER tables than you do.
>
> But we only need tables and no extra concepts. The relational model needs
> fewer constructs/concepts than other models. That we end up with more
> instances of the concepts in a given system, is a *positive* reflection of
> the model.
>> > more SIMPLE than a relational system. How many tables do you need to
> > That means that MV is
> > model an invoice?
>
> Wrong question. The question is, how many *concepts* do you need to model
an
> invoice?
>
> > In a well designed MV system we will have just *one*
> > FILE, that maps EXACTLY to your invoice view.
>
> But a FILE is more than just a set of tuples (aka a table). It is a more
> complex concept.
>> > detail without matching order, etc etc etc) just comes as "part of the
> > All your integrity enforcement (cascading delete, can't save order
> > package" with MV.
>
> Agreed, but that is not a benefit. Constraints are a single concept in the
> relational model. We don't distinguish between referential integrity and
> other constraints.
>
> > By the way, there is *scientific* *proof* that you're wrong in assuming
> > that a dollar spent on MV buys less than a dollar spent on relational.
>
> It that buys less in 'the future' or 'on average weighted over all
possible
> futures'
>
> The second could conceivably be answered by science, I'm not sure that the
> first could even in principle.
>> > to the conclusion that a dollar spent on MV bought the same as two
> > Admittedly there is precious little proof, but what little there is came
> > dollars spent on relational!
>
> So marketing surveys are *scientific* *proof*, hey. Wow.
>
> [snip]
> > And nor do we. The MV model (properly used) treats all entities as
> > equal. What it does NOT do is treat
>
> > attributes as equal to the entity they describe (which relational does).
>
> ?
>
> > Relational also treats relations as equal to their entities ...
>
> ??
>
> [snip]
> > Well, from reading Fabian (and I'd include others in this too), I came
> > to the conclusion that he is incredibly blinkered and bigoted, he has a
> > closed mind, and if he can't understand what you are saying he won't try
> > to work out where you're wrong - he'll simply slag you off as deluded.
> >
> > That would be okay if he's right,
>
> Ah, you've got it.
Yes, being right helps a lot. Having sufficient education and intelligence to actually understand when one is right is even better. Wol lacks much.
> > but what's the point of trying to
> > understand him if he can't be bothered to understand you?
It's quite a conceit to think that anyone who disagrees with one simply does not understand one. That Fabian clearly understands the issues while Wol hasn't a clue makes a world of difference.
> I do sympathise, but from his point of view, I suspect he doesn't feel he
> has the time to spend to understand (i.e. *educate*) you on a one to one
> basis. Plus you get a bit world weary after doing it again and again and
> again.
>
> It's debatable whether not responding would be a better strategy than
> responding with stuff like 'Your are an idiot'. I certainly think it is
> little value in publishing such exchanges as he sometime does on his site.
>
> Concentrating on 'educating' the more prolific (I'm not sure I should say
> 'more respected'), such as in this exchange
> http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/766119.htm, is a better bet in my book.
> However, I would agree that his style of persuasion is not to everyone's
> tastes...
> >> > opposed to you), then the only tenable conclusion is there are no flaws.
> > In those
> > circumstances the only option open is to assume that he must be wrong.
> > Since he has no interest in identifying the flaws in your argument (as
> > Ergo, it's him that's wrong, not you.
>
> If your arguments we novel and well constructed, then he might have more
> interest .
If Wol's criticisms were valid, one might care. As it is, the flaws in the anti-relational arguments have been pointed out ad nauseum. There comes a time when one must simply conclude that Wol and others like him are too stupid or too obstinate to comprehend a simple, obvious argument. Received on Wed Oct 22 2003 - 15:37:54 CEST