Re: Relational and multivalue databases

OK, I'll bite, but only for the purpose of entertaining myself and others who find this amusing.

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:07mdnW71heteLK7dRVn-vw_at_golden.net...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YBzYb.23125$Ir2.20735_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>
<snip>
>Good luck. I predict you will discover an inexhaustible supply of
vociferous ignorami.

I am surely ignorant, but not so ignorant that I believe I have nothing to learn from the perspectives of others and from asking questions when I'm perplexed, Bob. My ignorance doesn't compare to someone who thinks they have all of the answers, however.

>
> > And kudos to Dawn for always being willing to ask questions, explain
> > herself, and to remain cheerful in the face of insults.
>
> I predict you will quickly learn not to encourage the vociferous ignorami.

Employing sticks and stones rather than logical arguments is a long-standing technique in the bag of tricks used to dislodge women, among others, in business situations. It is a sub-cateogory of the wider collection of intimidation techniques and is rarely as effective as some of the more subtle approaches. You should have learned long ago not to be a bully.

>
> > * Dawn wrote: "...find that developers are so much more productive when
> > working with a MultiValue database"
> > and, on her MultiValue flashcard: "Typical relational databases cannot
> > match the productivity of the MultiValue database..."
> >
> > (I'm assuming by "database" you mean "DBMS," and there are no RDBMSs
> > yet, excepting the allegedly excellent Dataphor, which I've yet to use.)
> >
> > It sounds as if the MV development environment (IDE, reporting tools,
> > etc.) is to credit for productivity gains.
>
> What gains? Her alleged productivity advantage is nothing but a myth. She
is
> like a person who claims: "After making very careful measurements, we have
> determined that horses are more productive than cars. A man can ride a
horse
> ten miles in far less time than he can push a car a similar distance."

I will be the very first to state that I do not have enough emperical data to support this -- it is what I have found in my experience and when I compare with others, there are many such anecdotes. That is not conclusive. Given that most (all?) benchmarks for databases these days require that the database be SQL-based, it isn't even easy to get comparisons on what should be somewhat straight-forward to measure between the implementations of relational theory and that of PICK.

There are some facts that perhaps we could measure at some point related to the total number of software developers required to write and also to support systems with similar functionality, but whoever loses will make arguments about the differences in functionality, claiming that the additional resources required are related to an equivalent gain for the business. So, how would you propose testing out a hypothesis, such as mine, that non-1NF implementations that are not based on the relational model, such as PICK, provide a bigger bang for the buck for the entity paying the bills than do the current implementations that call themselves RDBMS's?.

>
> > * Dawn wrote, on her example MultiValue flashcard: "They [relational
> > databases] would also need features such as variable length data
> > structures, untyped elements, user-defined vocabularies and custom
> > functions specified as metadata."
> >
> > "Variable length data structures" are allowed by the relational model,
> > which places no restrictions on types (aka domains).
>
> As you notice, her allegation or assumption is false, which renders her
> entire point meaningless.

You can say that I'm wrong, but you have given no proof.

> > * Dawn wrote: "Also, what is the theory that leads to strong typing and
> > fixed lengths that are found in many relational databases?"
> >
> > The databases you referenced are not relational.
>
> Again, it suffices to note that Dawn is ignorant and is burning a straw
man.

I've already agreed that I am not all-knowing, but I'm addressing both the theory and implementations of RDMBS -- to what straw man are you referring? Even if RDBMS's do not require fixed length fields, for example, the % of variable length fields is quite low, I suspect. I do not have hands-on experience with more than ten applications implemented in an RDBMS, however, so perhaps I'm wrong. If my assumptions are incorrect, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

>
> > * Dawn wrote: "They [Don Nelson and Richard Pick] based the way the data
> > was specified (which I'm terming the data model, but that might not be
> > the right use of the term) on how it was to be queried."
> >
> > By "specifying data," I'm assuming you're referring a combination of
> > type definition, relation definition (including normalization), and
> > constraints.
>
> She refers to exposing every physical implementation detail to the most
> causual of users and to tying applications to specific physical artifacts.
> Only the profoundly ignorant can consider such a feature advantageous or
> productive compared to logical and physical independence.
>
As I type this, the person on CNN just said "that's comically pompous". It rolled off his tongue so well, I'll use it here. Is it even mildly interesting that IBM is pushing their Informix users to DB2, but is retaining their U2 users in U2? Why? Dollars. So, I'm apparently not the only "profoundly ignorant" person out there.

>
> > * Dawn wrote: "...multivalues crop up in the way people talk and think."
> >
> > Perhaps,
>
> I disagree. Sets crop up in the way people talk and think. Multivalues
crop
> up in the way the cognitively damaged or mentally injured talk and think.

Is it time for me to say "Shut up, Bob" yet?

>
>
> > * Dawn wrote: "It [MultiValued platforms] is old, yet could be revived
> > as it provides an amazingly productive environment, perhaps because it
> > is so forgiving and because it resembles XML to quite an extent."
> >
> > I would take resemblance to XML to be a damning attribute until
> > demonstrated otherwise...
>
> It suffices to note Dawn's profound ignorance of the Great Debate
happening
> nearly 30 years ago and that the debate proved pick sucks.

I have studied both the history of PICK and the history of SQL and RDBMS's to varying degrees. I'm aware of the Bachman/Codd debates as well as challenges to SQL by QBE, for example. I also know that Pick and Codd had no fondness for the thinking of the other. I am unware of any proof that "pick sucks" however -- please enlighten me (and IBM, for that matter).

>
>
> > * Dawn wrote: "It appears there are lower initial costs and lower
> > ongoing costs for companies using the MV platform over a more standard
> > RDBMS (Oracle, SQL Server, etc.)
> >
> > For initial costs, I can't say
>
> Again, it only appears that way to the intellectually crippled. Her
quackery
> is no different from the homeopaths who think water remembers. I highly
> recommend _How We Know What Isn't So_ by Thomas Gilovich ISBN: 0029117062.

You have probably figured out that in spite of being appalled by your lack of basic manners in such a discourse, I am amused at being called "intellectually crippled" and the like. I'm thinking that if I'm now stupid (or perhaps always was) then maybe now I can be good looking (I sortof figured I had to choose one and I was told I was smart more often than beautiful, so ...).
>
> Otherwise, it suffices to note that Dawn is an ignorant quack.

Ignorant, yes -- a "quack" -- nope, guess again.

<snip>
>
> She is a vociferous ignoramus with an axe to grind. She is impervious to
> reason and logic.

I have no axe to grind, nor financial investment to protect in this regard. I'm curious and rational and would like to get a better understanding related to relational and non-relational databases -- both theory and implementation.

I would like to hear one statement of reason or logic, along with the axioms from which you think it arises, that you believe I disagree with. I don't think I'm incapable of following reason. I'm teaching two weeks of Calculus in a few weeks to fill in for a paternity leave and haven't taught it in 20 years. However, I can still prove theorems related to continuity using either the analyt's tools of epsilon-delta proofs or the logician's non-standard analysis tools that include definitions of infinitessimals. I suspect that few illogical people could do this. I might have some brain blips in that peri-menopause state, but if you pass me some specific reason or logic to which you believe I am impervious, I will attempt to understand it.

>
>
> > * Dawn used an example of people owning cars and bikes, and how in
> > MultiValue the cars and bikes could be multi-valued attributes of the
> > person.
> >
> > This might be OK
>
> No, it's not. Search on "red blue car"
>

Gotta admit I miss your point here, Bob.

It is typically considerably easier to query non-1NF structures than to use SQL on anything. Here's a common type of query:

LIST STUDENTS WITH EVERY MAJOR NOT EQUAL "MATH" Think this easy query through in your typical RDBMS (SQL) implementation. This is not an isolated case.

And it isn't just single fields that can be nested, but fields can be grouped together and nested as a "nested function" or "nested relation" (if you prefer).

<snip>
> > Intuition is a poor basis for logical and data decisions

But a good basis for a hypothesis

<snip>
> It also exposes her deceit regarding productivity. By ignoring integrity
and
> by discounting the cost of corruption, she pretends--in her own mind--that
> she can increase productivity as if the only measure that counts is the
time
> until the first compilation that reports no errors instead of the time
until
> the system runs correctly.
>
Finally, I almost stopped reading, but here you actually have some meat. I disagree with your statement and will address this when responding to Eric

<snip>
> Dawn is a chronic ignoramus whose nonsense does not warrant a reply.

and yet you just can't help yourself, can you, Bob? and this time I gave you the satisfaction of a reply too, which might not have been the better part of wisdom, but I felt like it. So, have a good day and don't forget to smile a little.

--dawn Received on Wed Feb 18 2004 - 23:23:06 CET