Re: what data models cant do
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:36:12 -0400
Message-Id: <a9qpl2-ivm.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
Paul wrote:
>>>Non IT people understand relations very well too. IMO business people >>>tend to understand relations and set theory better than IT people. >> >> Yes, indeed. I formulated my "law" when I observed that people of any >> technical background or management level could actually conduct very >> productive meetings together if they stuck to the detailing of what >> should >> be kept in tables. There is something in the human mind that easily >> works with tabular data. >> >> I believe, completely without proof, that this human intuition is >> ultimately >> behind both the success of spreadsheets and the relational model. It is >> what gives us our sense that the relational model is "elegant".
>
> I disagree; I think the relational model is actually counter-intuitive.
>
> If you've ever seen (or been) a database novice, the instinct is to
> stick everything in one big table, because they then feel it is easy to
> get at what they want without having all those complicated joins getting
> in the way.
As the novices mature, they run into troubles and seek a way out, which
leads them by one route or another to discover normalization.
Thus questions the student: Master, I thought tables were good, and yet my
table is clumsy and difficult.
Thus replies the master: Ah, my grasshopper, if one table is good, more
tables are better. Seek thou to have a place for everything and everything
in its place.
...and the student was enlightened.
>
> It just goes to show that intuition isn't always right (cf. quantum
> mechanics, relativity, etc.).
Some intuition is learned. I find both quantum and relativity to be very intuitive.
>
> I think the sense of elegance stems from the fact that every fact is
> stored in one place only.
>
See above.
-- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)Received on Tue May 17 2005 - 20:36:12 CEST