Re: Demo: Modelling Cost of Travel Paths Between Towns
From: Neo <neo55592_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 4 Dec 2004 18:02:52 -0800
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0412041802.3c4bb4e4_at_posting.google.com>
Date: 4 Dec 2004 18:02:52 -0800
Message-ID: <4b45d3ad.0412041802.3c4bb4e4_at_posting.google.com>
> [Neo] insistence that his model is better than everything else,
--- From thread "Object-Oriented databases Reaerch" near 4/6/04 Alfredo Novoa wrote "The Relational Model is not superior in a few cases, but it is never inferior." Neo wrote "RDM is a subset of relational algebra. RDM is optimal for its scope. For problems outside of RDM's scope, RDM will be inefficient and impractical. For problems that are within the scope of models even more restricted than RDM, the restricted model will be more efficient. Overall, RDM is well suited for many common applications." --- From thread "Re: Demo: Things in Hierarchies (w/o RM/SQL)" near 11/07/07 Neo wrote ".. while RM is currently the most useful/practical data model, it is limited. TM is a more general data model and therefore is not as efficient within RM's scope. " Neo wrote: "A limited methodology (ie RM) will be more efficient than a more general methodology (ie Thing Model, the foundation for XDb1 & 2) when both are applied to an application within the limited methodology's scope. For years, RMers have propogated the falsity that RM is the most general/generic methodology. I am here to prove them wrong with examples outside RM's ideal scope." --- From thread "Date's First Great Blunder" near 4/21/04 Neo wrote: "In general, models "match" reality within a scope. The more specialized a model's scope, the more efficient it is within that scope but conversely the more miserably it fails outside of that scope. I agree that RDM has a scope which covers many common situations. The above example is designed to push RDM beyond its practical scope. XDb1 (a partial implementation of TDM) has a broader scope than RDM. Thus XDb1 is less efficient within RDM's scope." ---- From thread "A Normalization Question" near 6/8/07 and 7/26/07 Neo wrote "The relational model is fundamentally limited. Its limitations have pluses and minus. On the plus side, it can represent/manipulate fairly structured data (ie tables) efficiently. On the minus side, it is either impractical or impossible to represent/ maniplate/ normalize some scopes of data. ... XDb's data model (TDM) is more general than RM. On the plus side, it can normalize any[?] data. On the minus side, it is less efficient under a limited scope of data (ie tables). XDb1, an experimental db, is a limited implementation of TDM and can normalize to a greater extent than RM over certains scopes of data. XDb2, under development, is a more complete implementation of TDM and is able to normalize nearly all scopes of data." Neo wrote "RM/SQL are robust tools for production environments. XDb2 is a prototype of an experimental data model. For many common applications, RM/SQL solution will be more efficient, but there exists some AI-type apps where XDb2 could do well." ---- From thread "object algebra" near 2/25/04 Neo wrote "Using a more general model (TM) to solve a problem will be more difficult than using a less general model (RM), assuming the problem is within the less general model's scope. But when the problem begin to exceed the simpler model's scope, it is actually easier with the other. I am try to demonstrate this by requesting someone solve..." Eric Kaun wrote "RDM as a general model is fine." Neo wrote "In the overall scope of things, it is currently the best." ---- From thread "Nearest Common Ancestor Report" near 11/9/04 Neo wrote "...presently the relational model is probably the best overall solution to many common applications." ---- From thread "Database engines as extensions to applications" near 4/7/04 Neo wrote "RDM is a subset of the expressiveness afforded by pure relational algebra. RDM doen't have sufficient expressiveness to implement the higher levels of data/code structures/integration that people loosely associate with OO. RDM is optimal for its limited scope. For problems outside of RDM's scope, RDM will be inefficient and impractical. For now, RDM is well suited for many common applications." ---- From thread "Relational vs network vs hierarchic databases" near 11/9/04 Neo wrote "While RM dbs do have an advantage in many common applications presently, to those who contend that RM covers all scopes better than the remaining, please show how to represent the below things without NULLs and redundancy..."Received on Sun Dec 05 2004 - 03:02:52 CET