Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:02:57 -0500, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:

>Exactly. I've read a lot of what people have suggested is a mathematical
>proof that relational database theory is good for business.

It is good for data management.

> While the
>mathematical theory itself is fine, the application of it to databases can
>have no mathematical proof of its usefulness (math does not prove its
>usefulness!)

Of course it can and it did. You can do the same as before with a fraction of the instructions and optimization can be done by the machine.

>Let me guess -- so instead of taking the relational model to an
>implementation and playing on the IDMS playing field (which would only
>provide data on once instance of each), he brought CODASYL onto his ball
>field and then beat it, right?

To the field of formalism.

You try to do the same but your field is irrationalism and rough sophistry.

>Yes, I think you started to get at it. It sounds like it has been proven
>that a mathematical relational model is simpler than a corresponding network
>model

It has been proved that it is simpler to manage data with the relational approach.

You are always trying to confuse playing sloppily with words and distorting things.

>Has there been any proof, ever, of the use of the relational model providing
>for a better realized solution for anything than any other model?

It is not a proof but there are plenty of systems rewritten using a pseudorelational approach which saved a lot of code.

But it would be a waste of time to show them to you.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Mon May 31 2004 - 18:14:09 CEST