Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

> > Among other things, the difference in normalization between the
> > implementations (still looking it over) is quite different.
>
> I don't demand that XDb1 should use a relational structure, you should not
> demand that a RM solution uses XDb1's structure. If you want to compare,
> do so at the level where it counts.

The report your solution generates is correct, I have no disagreement with that. But the implemenation is generating it from unnormalized data where as XDb1 generates it from data normalized down to atomic symbols (ie a, b, c). Yes, I consider each symbol to be data. When XDb1 prints the words 'john' and 'god' on the report it resolves down to the one and only symbol 'o' in the db. The implementation provided doesn't model the atomic symbols (ie a-z). As a starting point, the word 'john' needs to be normalized as it appears multiple times in multiple tables. Changing any one of them would corrupt the data. In XDb1, there is only one instance of the word 'john'.

There is another issue that I will point out in another post.  

> > In an initial attempt to make them more comparable,
> > I modified XDb1 algorithm so as to not
> > resolve things' names and simply prints their IDs.
>
> Now you're changing the rules after the competition has started. Not a
> sign of good sportsmanship, Neo!

I do not think so, data must be as normalized as in XDb1's db. In general, there is no way XDb can compete with RM where a report is being generated from simply one table. Received on Wed May 19 2004 - 08:20:19 CEST