Re: Oracle and PICK
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:07:57 +0100
In message <XIAgc.8087$Aq.5905_at_nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Dan
>"Ross Ferris" <ross_at_stamina.com.au> wrote in message
>> "Dan" <guntermannxxx_at_verizon.com> wrote in message
>> Hi Dan !
>> I've read the thread, though my conclusions are somewhat different -
>> I'd suggest the topic should perhaps be "Bad database design sucks -
>> with ANY DBMS !"
>I can see where these conclusions are born out of the discussion.
>But the thread started with a real-world problem driven by the fact that the
>company had merged with another company. It therefore had to incorporate and
>map a new set of logical identifiers, over history. The problem wasn't
>necessarily the mapping between logical identifiers themselves, but with the
>deletorious effects it would have on each and every application, report,
>etc. that relied on the original internal data model. An RDBMS solution was
>proposed (see first response to the poster) that, IMO, would have overcome
>this problem easily.
Actually, iirc, it was NOT a specifically RDBMS solution. The same could/should have been done in Pick, with equal ease.
I like relational theory :-) (strange as that may seem). It makes my use of Pick even MORE efficient :-) It's just that Pick doesn't constrain what I *can* do, but I *choose* to let relational constrain what I *should* do. The result is a well-designed and very efficient system.
-- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 14:07:57 CEST