Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

dawn wrote:
>
> Once
> you normalize the data, your solution is no better than the average SQL
> implementation so you lose the charm

Wait-- are you saying you *advocate* denormalization? Can you clarify this please?

> I'm trying to convince
> "the industry" to adopt more flexible (dare I say "agile") data models
> and related tools.

Can you be specific about the features of the model you want, the kind of operations supported on the model, the problems with SQL that these problems will solve, and how to use the new model and operations/tools to solve those problems?

Note that I am not asking for "proof" of anything. Proof of cost/benefit is not possible and I suggest you abandon that search. Instead I am simply asking for examples. Sort of like, here's a problem I had once, and it was solved with MV like this, and see how much harder the SQL version of this solution is? Even the last is optional.

My big frustration with your quest is that for all the messages you post, I still really don't know anything *specific* you think would be beter with MV than with SQL.

Marshall Received on Thu Feb 16 2006 - 19:38:27 CET