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

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 02:05:50 +0200
Message-ID: <40c502d8$0$6968$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> mAsterdam writes
>

>>> By focussing  on minimising the complexity of one part of the system, 
>>> we make the  system as a whole more complex. That will explain why 
>>> Dawn's experience  is that MV is more productive than relational - 
>>> the simplicity of the  relational database over MV simply pushes all 
>>> the complexity into the  business analysis side, turning that into a 
>>> total nightmare.
>>
>>
>> I'll state my intuition (not backed up by experience)
>> about not taking the time to analyse data:
>> postponing the basic issues will bring volatile
>> quick wins, pushing depth investment (cost) of
>> reflection and the real benefits of data assests
>> into the future. So, if and only if your survival
>> depends on quick wins, go for it.

>
> Except that Dawn's experience (and most MV consultants, too) is that the
> cost of maintaining old MV databases is lower than that of maintaining
> relational ...
>
> They're cheaper to write, they're cheaper to maintain, and they take a
> LOT longer to get decrepit ...

As I understood your writings you claim to analyse your data before taking a well-informed decision to prefer MV implementation above a RDBMS implementation. How can my statement about quick wins trigger this response? Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 19:05:50 CDT