Re: MultiValue Databases

From: John <no_at_email>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:12:21 +0100
Message-ID: <42a87879$0$23688$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>

Ed Prochak wrote:
>
> John wrote:
>

>>Neo wrote:

>
> []
>

>>To prove that the data model is "more general" does not require examples
>>ad nauseam, it requires proof.

>
> well said. but he has not chance of proof since his model is just a
> network datamodel.
>
>

>>I sympathise with Lee. These examples bear no resemblance to a
>>real-world modelling task that I have encountered, simply because one
>>normally works from a known spec rather than designing a few tables and
>>adding extra information in a piecemeal fashion.

>
>
> but adding tables and columns for a RM model is not the drastic change
> the Neo makes it out to be. For example rether than restructure the
> phone DB to add the "Bob likes Mary" data, i would suggest a table
> called LIKES with two attributes DESIRER and DESIREE as primay key.
> both would foreign key back to the persons table so you prevent
> illogical entries like "111-1111 likes neutral".

I agree. I had to restructure it in order to be able to handle a query of "how are these two things related?". The query was pointless, but it was instructive to show that it could be handled.

>
>

>>
>>This just isn't the way that you prove a point. You need to do it in an
>>abstract and formal way rather than by these examples, usenet challenges
>>etc.
>>
>>I admire your enthusiasm for your cause, and am very much a supporter of
>>new technologies, the underdog etc.

>
>
> The sad thing is this isn't new technology. It's old technology wrapped
> in windows clothes.
>
>
>

>> ...  If you are serious about this then
>>get up to speed on the relational model and the supporting theory (read
>>and absorb the whole of Date's intro to database systems for example).
>>This will introduce you to the whole range of criteria against which a
>>database will be judged. If xrdb is going to compete, it will have to be
>>as good as or superior to relational DBMSs in every criterion. Like it
>>or not, relational databases are the market leader and you'll have to
>>know them inside out for your product to compete with them.

>
>
> Relational Model is not a market leader, since it isn't a product. It
> is the basis of many leading DBMS products. It is also the theoretical
> "leader" meaning it is the best general model known.

OK. I should have enclosed "Relational" in quotes.

>
>

>>Just from thinking about it, xrdb can be shown as better than relational
>>databases when it comes to storing data or completely unpredictable
>>structure. Your computer task would probably show that xrdb was neater
>>for persisting this type of information. The problem is that someone has
>>to retrieve that data, enforce integrity constraints on it etc. With a
>>relational DB you can see a list of tables each of which contains atomic
>>or encapsulated values and has regularly defined constraints on it.
>>Trying to browse the xrdb hierarchy looks complicated enough using the
>>tool you have developed; trying to write queries for it, reason about
>>the structure, compare different entities etc could be nightmarish.

>
>
> By Jove, I think he's Got IT!
>
>

>>If I were you I would think about / do the above then produce an
>>advocacy paper with formal justification for each of the claims. Post
>>back here and I'm sure a lot of people will assess it for you. I am not
>>a big one for ad hominem arguments, but I think you need to realise that
>>you need to be very well-educated and experienced in this field to avoid
>>looking like a tit compared with people that are. I hasten to add that I
>>profess to be neither.
>>
>>John

>
>
> I would prefer he post his theoretical arguements in
> comp.databases.theory first and leave comp.databases out of it for now.
> There are just too many newcomers to database theory here (in
> comp.databases) to see how bad neo's system really is.
>
> Ed
>

I think that he will realise its theoretical limitations when he applies   himself to the theory. I agree that c.d.t would be the best place for any theoretical arguments.

John Received on Thu Jun 09 2005 - 12:12:21 CDT