Re: Reminder, blatant ad
From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:02:26 GMT
Message-ID: <CzrIf.257293$3P4.7890037_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
>
> Surely some software somewhere (the OS, the DBMS?) is getting a new
> version in order to make for this "change"?
>
> What is the test for determining whether they are too tightly
> coupled?
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:02:26 GMT
Message-ID: <CzrIf.257293$3P4.7890037_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>
dawn wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
>
>> dawn wrote: >> >>> Jan Hidders wrote: >>> >>>> dawn wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to better understand data independence in terms of >>>>> functionality. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> It means that you can make some changes in the physical model >>>> w/o having to change the logical model. Note that this is >>>> different from what you just said because you were talking >>>> about the logical model. >>> >>> I thought that was what I was saying in the first answer. How is >>> this different? >> >> The version of the DBMS tool doesn't change. You should be able to >> change the physical model w/o changing the tool.
>
> Surely some software somewhere (the OS, the DBMS?) is getting a new
> version in order to make for this "change"?
>>> [...] Why would you think that a change in the physical model of >>> a non-relational DBMS (e.g. PICK) would require reworking the >>> logical model? >> >> This is not necessarily true for all such systems but in many of >> those the logical and physical model are closely tied together and >> their efficiency in fact often depends on this close relationship.
>
> What is the test for determining whether they are too tightly
> coupled?
> What is it that changes (the "physical model" doesn't resonate with
> me, I want to know what software components would change) that should
> not require a change in the logical model but does in some
> non-relational products?
- Jan Hidders