Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational?
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:26:50 GMT
Message-ID: <Zwcad.222908$D%.129275_at_attbi_s51>
"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:E5-dnVBQ9KTctPTcRVn-qg_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Yes, but the answer is wrong", I say. They respond, "that's a minor
> detail."
In such situations I always reply that if a *wrong* answer is acceptable, then I can come up with one much faster than what they're proposing.
> There is a widespread belief in this field that wrong answers with good
> performance are closer to the goal line than correct answers with poor
> performance. I will never come around to that point of view. I almost
> always want to get it right, first, then work on getting it right, and
> fast.
Yeah, I hear you.
Thing is, there are some domains where a fast, mostly right answer *is* better. Which freaks me out, really. But generally that's not the case. What I wish is that we had tools to move this issue into the semantics. In other words, we ought to be able to say how much we care about speed, and how much about correctness, and have the computer respond accordingly.
Marshall Received on Sun Oct 10 2004 - 17:26:50 CEST