Re: Relational and multivalue databases

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:IczZb.37$w.272_at_news.oracle.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c16cp5$ob6$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > Mikito -- I might not have been clear about the theory side on this.
Here
> > is my dillemma -- I have studied database theory and I have used many
> > databases and data storage approaches. It seemed to me that there are
> many
> > folks who have been taught or who believe that the relational data model
> > actually leads to a better solution in data quality, database
maintenance
> > over time, etc. That is, it seemed from my studies that a company would
> be
> > the best steward of their financial resources if they were to employ a
> > relational database.
>
> I have been on nonrelational database implementation side as well. But
> nobody on this group could care less what my relational experience is, let
> alone nonrelational.
>
> > However, my experience tells me that the implementations of the
relational
> > model "seem to" (I admit I have no concrete proof of this) be more
costly,
> > without corresponding benefits, to the corporate owner.
>
> Let managers worry about the cost, and, as technical people, let us be
> fascinated with technology.

I was once told that there are people who think of cars as fascinating machines and those who think of cars as (perhaps fascinating) machines that get us from one place to another. This person then said that we call the first group "men" and the second group "women". I certainly disagree with that as a blanket statement, but I suspect there could be emperical data to suggest something similar related to computers.

I have no fascination for technology outside of how it provides improvements for people or creation. I do have a love of mathematics for mathematics sake, however. And if that is what is going on with discussions of relational theory, then continue the game, by all means. There is no need to have implementations of the theory, however, unless it is useful. Surely implementations of relational databases are useful and have been accepted by IT professionals. However, some of the reaons they are employed have to do with the false notion that there is something about relational theory that is "more mathematical" or more orthodox or pure. Companies then employ these beasts thinking they are more cost-effective.

So, if we are tinkering with cars in our garage, count me out -- I just don't care. If we are telling people that cars are better when they use more gas, and if people then believe these claims and buy bigger and "better" cars, then I do care and I feel a need to speak up and say it ain't so.

> > If the relational model is not intended to yield a better solution, when
> > taking into consideration all factors, than a non-relational model, then
I
> > could care less about it -- would you still care about it then?
> >
> > So, let's look at the big picture of requirements for an application
that
> > includes data storage -- if we look at the overall cost of ownership
> > (including data quality, ongoing support costs etc) of an RDBMS is it
> lower
> > or higher than the implementations of other models such as PICK. My
> > hypothesis is that it is more expensive (often considerably more) to
> employ
> > an RDBMS. Is this irrelevant? I don't think so -- I think it tosses
into
> > question what the purpose of the theory is in the first place.
> >
> > So, what is our goal in having a good theory of how to store and
retrieve
> > data? --dawn
>
> The purpose of the theory is leading industry to high-tech solutions,
rather
> than surrendering to chaos of ad-hock approaches.

The purpose of tinkering with our car is to have really cool tires, bumpers, etc? I sure hope not. I think Codd really thought he was coming up with a better theory that would translate into something good in database implementations. There are good things about the relational model and its implementations and there are failures as well. There is nothing anointing the relational database model from above as being the best approach to managing data in a software application.

So, testing out various database theories and finding the pros and cons of each as it relates to the actual USE of products that attempt to implement a theory seems like what one might want to do with a discussion related to database theory. A theory related to serial killers that doesn't actually help us find serial killers is just not interesting to me. Make sense? Thanks. --dawn Received on Sat Feb 21 2004 - 03:39:56 CET