Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> mAsterdam writes
>> Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>>
>>> So if I put my data into an MV database I can access it as if it were
>>> in an RDBMS. However, the converse is not true.
>>
>> It would be very interesting to know - in some detail -
>> what kind of data gives difficulties in putting stuff
>> from a RDBMS into a MV database.
>> This maybe somewhat awkward in this newsgroup, because some
>> will be just waiting to say: See? You *can* express proposition_set(x)
>> in a RDBMS, and you *can't* in MV, therefore MV is better.
>> More is not a priori better.
>>
>> But I trust you can stand that reaction. Could you give some examples?
>>
> Actually, all you have to do to make RDBMS appear (superficially) to
> look like MV is to declare the appropriate views. This does, however,
> have the unfortunate side-effect of presenting your application with
> apparently redundant data.
'superficially' only? explain.
'unfortunate side-effect of presenting your application with
apparently redundant data' what's so unfortunate in having
redundancy in presenting stuff? This is getting to look more
and more like sales-crap. I don't want to offend you, but
please try to understand what I am asking instead of giving
a rebuttal to a non-existent attack.
Received on Mon Jun 14 2004 - 20:20:17 CDT
