Re: Relational and multivalue databases

Wow -- thanks, Eric! I appreciate your responses.

I'm sure you'll understand if it takes me a little time to address your points. Also, you are responding to a dialolg from 2002 when I was starting to delve further into researching why the practical experience I had did not align with the database theory I had learned. I've learned a bit more in the past year (so I'm still capable of it ;-) and will accept several of your points without need to respond.

But, I have become more, rather than less, convinced that the relational model is not the most useful so I could still be classified as a SQL detractor (which many relational theorists are too) as well as a relational theory detractor (not that it isn't good as a theory, but that it doesn't yield productive development environments). So it is useful for me to try out my objections on interested parties who can correct my logic or agree that a particular topic is a matter of taste or the requirements being addressed.

Along with the fact that I'm probably more interested in theories that yield developer productivity than those which yield a more academic goal, the biggest areas of disagreement I have relate to 1. modeling propositions as relations rather than functions that represent graphs (mathematically)
2. referential integrity as well as type constraints and where these should be specified and enforced.

I'm sure there are other areas I can respond to as well. Thanks for your interest in my questions and your thoughtful responses. As you can see, my attempts to dialog with trees or dogs end up with me talkin' to myself and/or trying to determine whether I really am stupid or just ignorant ;-)

Cheers! --dawn Received on Wed Feb 18 2004 - 18:28:20 CET