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

In message <40bfce4e$0$48920$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>, mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> 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 ...

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
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 1999