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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:26:25 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:

>Name one precise problem that the hierarchical DBMS's had that is now
>present for anyone using an XML model of data.

The horrendous complexity and inflexibility.

> It's time to drop the flawed
>notion that data graphs have some inherent problems.

Graph based data models have severe 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)

Many roman bridges are being used today, but it does not mean that we should build bridges in the same way as in the I century.

>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.

You are playing with words again. Graph theory is not better or worse than predicate logic or differential calculus, but the Relational Model is dramatically superior to the graph based data models.

Regards Received on Sun Dec 12 2004 - 01:30:32 CET