Re: foundations of relational theory?

A database's primary job is the ability to store data and allow users to quickly/easily query that data. If pick could not do this, I would agree with some of the detractors comments. But pick is plenty able to do this. In fact, Datastage which is one of the premier Datawarehousing products out there is written in Unidata. Informix originally purchased Ardent (the original owners of universe, unidata, and Datastage) because of Datastage with the plan to port it to Informix (i.e. SQL). Well that didn't happen, in fact the Informix Exec's dumped informix and went with Datastage to Ascential while selling Informix to IBM. Cache is a variant of pick and also does very well. Raining Data has recently introduced Tiger-XML which is a XML storage database that appears to compete very quick as compared to other systems that are available (time will tell if it will truely compete).

The common thread above is all these products are designed to store many different data information. The pick model has proven to be very capabable in these areas.

The real issue here is that very few pick systems have DBA's. Therefore I can understand a bunch of "intellectual" math specialist not liking the idea of a system that does not need their expertise. Pick gives those of us not as smart as "Bob" the ability to write applications and heaven forbid actually model our own Database. Therefore I will not wish the elimination of SQL to keep you employed if you will ease up on pick that keeps us "Idiots" (as Bob describes us) employed. Many of us work in Companies/industries that cannot afford the multiple "Highly Educated" personel that SQL seems to require.

• Patrick

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:<7Czlb.35$UP3.188_at_news.oracle.com>...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:K5mdnVW6QOnLJwuiU-KYuA_at_golden.net...
> > One can measure and quantify simplicity and complexity. Feeling plays no
> part in
> > forming a valid conclusion.
>
> It's fundamentally impossible to have a compexity measure for finite
> objects. A sequence
>
> 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
>
> is no simpler than
>
> 10100110110101011101010101010101010101111
>
> Martin-Lefs definition of random sequence applies to infinite sequences
> only.
>
> Therefore, simplicity and complexity is about belief. I believe that this
> guy, who pulled of 4 aces in a row, is a con master, and I can't support my
> belief with any rational explanation. (Probability argument doesn't work:
> 1000 digits long sequence consisting of 1s only have the same probability as
> any other 1000 digits long sequence).
>
> Likewise, I believe that Pick database is not worth of my attention. It has
> no credible intellectuals backing it up, it's a tiny niche, its
> mathematically noninteresting.
Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 01:03:09 CEST