Re: Relational and multivalue databases

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:2pvZb.30$w.242_at_news.oracle.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:c-OdnXYbLKFFvajdRVn-vw_at_golden.net...
> > "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
> > news:eh9Zb.23$iK2.168_at_news.oracle.com...
> > > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c12vqr$a2k$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > >
> <snip>
> Let me express myself little bit more politely. Yes, 1NF could be
considered
> not quite as sound theoretical basis. But, what is your idea? Files and
> delimiters? Any database researcher would stop reading your manuscript
right
> there.

>

Yes, it is simply a key-value -- that is function(key) = value type of data storage. In fact, it makes more sense to call it a file structure than a database. When I first saw PICK (as a manager at a new place of employment) I remarked "that is NOT a database"! I don't care what we call it, but I wouldn't want to go back to the DBMS's that my teams and I had worked with in the past. It would simply not be stewardly (in terms of dollars and people time) to do so. But I'll keep working at determinig whether this is a fluke or whether there really is a good logical reason for non-relational data storage to be advisable in more instances than, perhaps, a relational model is appropriate.

Thanks for engaging. I'm still a student and not trying to sound like I have all the answers -- just a bunch of questions after considerable research and experience. Cheers! --dawn Received on Sat Feb 21 2004 - 01:17:39 CET