Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> ... <snip>
>
> I'm trying to catch up and thought perhaps someone could answer these two
> questions --
>
> 1) Has anyone provided any better logic related to the 1GB than that
> provided by Date? If not, I would think we could talk about this as
> intuition or hypothesis that there is a mistake rather than anything
> resembling a proof, right?

Right! The term "Great blunder" is in it self a sign of "opinion", "feeling", "intuition" more than of a scientific fact. It would be careless to use the terms "wrong" or "right", and D&D probably knows that.
The "proof" follows to some extend a logical deduction; however the premises are uncertain at best, and probably even wrong. D&D _defines_ the terms in such a way that their conclusions thereby are given a priori, IMO.
The conclusion cannot be better than the premises, regardles of the logical deduction.
I think this is Mr. Gittens main point.

> 2) Has anyone given a good refutation that there is no Great Blunder other
> than to attack the lack of logic in the defense of the 1GB?

It is a fact that systems with 1GB is in use without any problems related to 1GB.

But we must remember that D&Ds TTM really is about an "extension" to RDBMS, and does not apply to RDBMS's as known.
So any real system has no alternative to committing 1GB anyway (perhaps except Alphora...). Received on Wed Dec 01 2004 - 11:43:07 CET