Re: The TransRelational Model: Performance Concerns

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:4194a1e3.3222968_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:06:02 GMT, "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com>
> wrote:
>
> >is a substantial barrier for use. Commercial and open source projects
> >both often steer well away from patented technologies, unless an
> >agreement with the patent holder is secured in advance.
>
> Or unless you don't live in the States or Japan.

A fair point.

> >As I read over your post, I couldn't help but notice that it looked
> >just like a description of a fully inverted index. What do you think?
>
> That you don't understand what the TransRelational Model is.

Okay. So please explain the differences between TRM and a fully inverted index.

> >Your analysis looked pretty good to me.
>
> Curious, I didn't reply because it looked pretty ridiculous to me.
>
> All the issues are based in wrong assumptions and the only operation
> he analizes is a restriction over a single attribute. This is not
> serious!

Or anyway, it's not sufficient. (He also analyzed inserts.) But the big thing he was missing was a discussion of joins. I have been impressed with the fully inverted index being able to do a merge join at O(m+n) on *any* join, until Mikito deflated my enthusiasm. I really need to read more about dbms internals!

Marshall Received on Fri Nov 12 2004 - 16:19:46 CET