Re: A Question on Integrety

I wonder what IBM's ROI is on their non-RDBMS database(s) compared to their ROI on DB2 It strikes me as interesting that "relational theorists" often respond not with logic, but with comments like "your approach has been proven not to work" and "that's stupid" -- it seems to me that relational database theory is one part mathematics (which I appreciate) and one part religion (which I also appreciate, but would not consider the RDBMS a good object for worship).

I am not opposed to relational theory, but it is not the entire picture. There is surely more data stored in non-RDBMS's than in them -- Excel spreadsheets, most web pages, and much more. Also, many folks working at the cutting edge of software development are storing data in structures more like pre-RDBMS AND FOR A REASON! Pre-RDBMS and Post-RDBS structures will look more similar than the RDBS advocates might like, I'm guessing.

But, if this comp.databases.theory newsgroup is just for relational theory, I'll find other forums for my "stupid" opinions about how storing data in di-graphs (at.least logically) is more intuitive and easier to set up and manage. It is the model for the data in the WWW, which happens to be a very successful model in spite of broken links (lack of referential integrity). There are trade-offs to all models, but one thing clear to me is that the days of SQL and the RDBMS data model as the standards are numbered. There are mathematical models for trees and di-graphs so relational theory will not be the only mathematical game in town. And these non-relational models need less religious zeal as they are more often obviously productive environments for developing applications (yes, that's an opinion that might border on religious zeal as well)..

Set theory and predicate logic are not the only mathematical models in town and not the ones that always make the most sense when it comes to data navigation. Navigating graphs (which is what older databases often did as hierarchical, network, or key-value structures) is intuitive and successful.

And of course, there are many more opinions where that came from. If I can find reasonable discourse here and not just the "stupid" stuff, I'll continue, otherwise I'll try to find a group of folks interested in such discussion (if anyone knows a better place for discussion on database theory, let me know).
Thanks. --dawn

"Roy Hann" <rhann_at_globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:brrsam$8s1$1_at_titan.btinternet.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:brqfcc$nsd$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > And for those who like to use the word "stupid" (just what is it you are
> > compensating for?! don't you realize that it is preferable to dialog
with
> > friendly people?
>
> Ooh! Ooh! I want to be first, I want to first!
>
> "Stupid" is a word that describes people who think "dialog" is a
transitive
> verb. It also describes people who write all the other horse-shit that
came
> before that and put me in the mood to point it out.
>
> Why spend hours of my life trying to explain why you are clueless when you
> are so clueless as to be beyond reach, when I can simply insult you and
> discourage all the other idiots from exposing themselves to similar
> gratuitous abuse? That achieves the maximum good I think.
>
> Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas, etc.
>
> Roy Hann
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 18 2003 - 15:48:39 CET