Re: 4 the Faq: Strengths and Weaknesses of Data Models
From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 -0400
Message-ID: <5g9mkc.kq8.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
> is
>
> Codd dealt with the comparison between network models and relational
> models in his 1970s paper.
> Most of what he said in that comparison is still true today. That was
> analysis, not just faith.
>
>
> I want to answer an easier question: why did VAX Rdb/VMS win out over VAX
> DBMS?
>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 -0400
Message-ID: <5g9mkc.kq8.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
Laconic2 wrote:
>
> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:n53kkc.0h1.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...
>> It seems to be taken for granted by the majority in this ng that the RDM
> is
>> superior to the hierarchical and network data models. I am in that >> majority, but I realize it is probably for me more a matter of faith than >> proof.
>
> Codd dealt with the comparison between network models and relational
> models in his 1970s paper.
> Most of what he said in that comparison is still true today. That was
> analysis, not just faith.
>
I will re-read, but my impression was that the hierarchical model had no rigorous basis for comparison at that time, and so his criticisms may no longer be valid.
>> >> So the question is: why did RDM win the database wars? Was it really on >> strengths, or was it, shudder to think, just one of those trends that IT >> goes through? >>
>
> I want to answer an easier question: why did VAX Rdb/VMS win out over VAX
> DBMS?
>
<snip answer>
-- Kenneth Downs Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to email meReceived on Thu Oct 14 2004 - 18:28:53 CEST