"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo_at_pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:u9d4c09obogel9uft56v5jctslrjabc57e_at_4ax.com...
> Hi Neo,
>
> Good grief! I've been away from this discussion for two days and now I
> keep seeing the same message over and over again! Is it my reader, your
> posting software or did you actually think your arguments become more
> convincing if you just repeat them over and over again. (Be warned - I
> have two children, aged 7 and 8, so I am quite familiar with this
> technique and I can assure that it won't work on me.)
>
> Answers in-line between the quote. I'll send this to just the first of
> your seven identical messages and leave the other six unanswered.
>
>
> On 3 Jun 2004 18:35:31 -0700, Neo wrote:
>
> >> I changed my model ...now down to 11.0 ms ...
> >> ... better than the 16 ms that XDb1 needs...
> >
> >Because RM solutions (1, 2 and 4) thus far aren't nearly as normalized
> >or generic as XDb1's, they fail under a broader scope of data. Below
> >is such data:
>
> "broader"? Broader than *what*? Broader than the scope you outlined in
> your challenge message? Yes, you can bet your sweet bippy that my RM
> solutions (1 and 2 only - I won't take ANY responsibility for the mess you
> wrote yourself and went on to call RM#4) will fail under a "broader"
> scope. They won't roast the toast either, as I'm sure that XDb1 v7.18.4
> someday will. Who cares?
>
> It's really quite simple, Neo. You set a challenge. You outlined the
> requirements and promised a reward for the first to fulfill those
> requirements. I entered the challenge. I met all the requirements you
> stated. And then you started stating additional requirements, producing
> new versions of XDb1 and making a fool out of yourself.
>
> What will it be, Neo? Will you finally admit that I've done exactly what
> you asked? Are you going away? Or will you really go on making a fool out
> of yourself, throwing away what's left of your credibility (if any)?
>
>
> >Enter a small hierarchy of 3 things, where god is the parent of an
> >unnamed person, and god is also the parent of a person with three
> >names (string 'john', integer 100, decimal 3.14). Although the data
> >may not seem sensible, think of it in a broader scope: a thing which
> >doesn't have an attribute and a thing which has an attribute with
> >three values, each of different type.
> >
> >Below is XDb1's script to model the above hierarchy (older versions of
> >XDb1 will not process the below sentences correctly; however, the
> >equivalent can be accomplished via their GUI or API or the db can be
> >downloaded from website):
> >
> (snip script)
> >
> >Right-clicking on god and selecting 'Anc Report' generates the
> >following where the unnamed thing's classes (and attributes, if any)
> >are printed, and all values for name of the second person are printed.
> >
> >Common 'parent' Report for 'god'
> >ThingX ThingY CmnAnc Dist
> >person john 100 3.14 god 2
> >Time Elapsed: 0.906550 msec
>
> How does this small hierarchy of 3 things relate to the challenge you
> posted (http://tinyurl.com/yvm5g) almost three weeks ago? There is nothing
> in that message that even hints at the requirement of storing nameless or
> multiple-named things. You just added that in later. And the fact that you
> had to update XDb1 to accept this input without kludging through the GUI
> or programming through the API shows that the version of XDb1 that was
> current when you set the challenge couldn't do this either.
>
>
> >RM solutions thus far, lack the normalization and genericness to
> >represent the above data.
>
> Both RM#1 and RM#2 are, as requested for this challenge, "using the
> relational model (...) from normalized and NULL-less data". I dared you
> several times salready to show which of the normalization rules of the
> relational model my solution violates. I quoted Codd's definitions of the
> normal forms, with URL. You just need to state which of these definitions
> I misunderstood when I called my model normalized. Or you may provide a
> URL to an alternate description of normalization IN THE RELATIONAL MODEL.
>
> > If RM's solution could be updated to
> >accommodate the above, we will be one step closer to making an
> >apple-to-apple comparison.
>
> I'm not interested in apples, nor in comparisons. This discussion is about
> a challenge you set, not about benchmarking.
>
> Best, Hugo
> --
Hugo,
It is no use arguing with a fool; it only makes you look foolish. I'm
putting this guy in my Kill File. I suggest you do the same. He had no
intention of paying up, it was all a scam to advertise this "database". I
think we have wasted enough time on this nonsense.
Jim
>
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
Received on Sat Jun 05 2004 - 17:07:35 CDT
