Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:04:05 GMT
Message-ID: <41bdcb2c.25429734_at_news.wanadoo.es>
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:41:09 +0100, "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:
>> You are playing with words again. Graph theory is not better or worse
No, I am not.
>> than predicate logic or differential calculus, but the Relational
>> Model is dramatically superior to the graph based data models.
>
>Don't you remotely see that you are "playing with words" yourself.
>You are giving no arguments what so ever, but "opininons" and adjectives as
>"horrendous complex and inflexibility", "severe inherent", "from 1st
>century" (well, that's younger than logic btw), "dramatically superior"...
They are well known facts that everybody that works with databases
should know.
>Repeating dislikes with (new) adjectives does not prove any point (except
>perhaps that there is no proof).
They were proven decades ago. They were inquestionable facts when I studied database theory in the university.
>You may very well have the correct conclusions (in fact I think you have
>here).
>
>So, what _is_ the "inflexibility" in XML?
The well known inflexibility of the Hierarchical Model.
>What _are_ the inherent AND severe problems in graph models (we are not
>talking implentation, remember).
The navigational and procedural nature of these data management approaches among other things.
>By _what measure(s)_ are Relations Model dramatically superior to graph
>based data models (again, not implementation).
Flexiblility, simplicity, power, and all that you learned when you studied database theory.
Regards Received on Mon Dec 13 2004 - 18:04:05 CET