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

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:41b823f0.6049750_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:34:06 GMT, Jan Hidders
> <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:
>
>>I already did that in this thread and you chose to ignore it.
>
> Do you mean this?
>
>>>From a scientific point the situation is actually very simple. The
>>>hypothetis predicts that you run into certain problems when you build
>>>DBMSs that are based on this principle. However, such databases have
>>>been built and the problems weren't there.
>
> The problems are not in the construction of the DBMSs they are in the
> use of such DBMSs.
>
>>> What is nonsense are OODBMS and XMLDBMS research.
>>
>>Just repeating a claim is not very interesting. Actually supplying some
>>evidence for it would really help the discussion.
>
> OODBMSs inherit most of the problems of the Network DBMSs and XML
> DBMSs inherit most of the problems of the Hierarchical DBMSs. Both
> were a return to a wrong and abandoned path, and they are being
> abandoned again due to the same problems.

Name one precise problem that the hierarchical DBMS's had that is now present for anyone using an XML model of data. It's time to drop the flawed notion that data graphs have some inherent problems. One can build terrible database management systems based on graphs or good ones. The model, itself, is useful and never was abandoned in reality (or in Reality, a database from the company Northgate -- McDonnell-Douglas and variants of the company kept this graph-based solution active since the early 70's as the Microdata company, and it is still being sold and used today)

Graph-based data models have survived the Relational Database trend and will now get a new push given that more people now understand -- and even more will! -- that RDBMS's have no better theorectical basis than graph-based database management tools. And, PA-LEASE STOP calling them "Network" and "Hierarchical" -- they are graphs and trees. No other niche in the computer industry has problems using mathematical terms "graphs" and "trees". Using a mathematical term ("relations") for your preferred data model, while avoiding the mathematical terms for the others is way too obvious a form of spin and, by golly, it worked for a couple of decades, dag nab it (thus holding back our industry unnecessarily, methinks), but the time has come to AT LEAST get away from the N & H terms. --dawn

> Regards
Received on Sat Dec 11 2004 - 01:26:25 CET