Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

"erk" <eric.kaun_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1114531039.161334.212780_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> mountain man wrote:
>> His model, and the RM of the data belongs to the 1970's, prior to the
>> release of Oracle, and in the 1980's DB2 and SQL Server, among
>> other RDBMS software.
>>
>> Codd's and Date's model of the data is thus antiquated, except for
>> the purpose of historical reference, seeing as though it has been
>> realised for over 30 years within the machinery of software (RDBMS
>> vendors).
>
> Apparently the above "belongs to the 1970's" and "antiquated" [sic] are
> meant to indicate a deficiency, but keep in mind that math, logic,
> physics and many other fields of study are much older as well.

All disciplines clearly evolve in time. Database theory is one such discipline that is very recent, but for which the technological environment has undergone rapid change.

> And as far as being realised - well no, it hasn't.

This depends upon your POV. There are hundreds of thousands of RDBMS software being sold over the last 25 years as relational database management system software.

This software embodies the principles of the RM as outlined by Codd et al, and any short-falls between it and a "perfect realisation by Yogi Date" are addressable, one by one.

>> Harmful? Yes. Database theorists and academics are having a field
>> day in generating useless pedagogic literature that bears absolutely
> no
>> reference to the technical reality and/or USE of modern RDBMS
>> software.
>
> I don't understand how this would be harmful even if it were true.

I like to think of database theorists and academics as being useful, even though this may not be their primary goal in life ...

They may as well be in touch with reality!

> Theorists and academics aren't all charged with providing useful tools
> to industry; basic research requires creativity, risk, and often
> foolishness. Much useful information has come from such.

Of course, and even from dreams and the like.

> In short: industry capitalizes on the findings of academia, and while
> the practices in any field can be a field of study in its own right,
> how I drive my car has no bearing whatsoever on, for example, fuel
> science. Are you certain that the findings in academia have no bearing
> on practice?

There is also a tidal influence by which both areas influence each other sometimes leading, at other times being led.

> The usual course of events is that vendors completely
> ignore useful results from academia in favor of whatever their users
> scream most loudly about, and whatever other vendors are doing... so
> even when there is useful research around, it's ignored.

It is a complex environment and getting even more complex. What is required is not more complexification, but simplification.

The vendors are now generating near similar RDBMS software. This software works exceeding well. Insurmountable problems do not exist for the skilled DBA who can mix SQL and the automated task queue.

There was a time when the theory led the practices. But now the practices must be re-examined by the theory. Things have changed under the bonnet of an RDBMS since Relational Systems Inc released Oracle.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 10:53:55 CEST