Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: More on lists and sets

Re: More on lists and sets

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:48:02 GMT
Message-ID: <CQxVf.721$Q9.190@trndny07>

"Brian Selzer" <> wrote in message news:KygVf.8559$
> I think that there is a fundamental problem with the MV/NFNF mindset.

I think so too. What I think is a problem is the way it deals with many-to-many relationships.
To the extent that I've gotten the explantions from MV adherents, they end up reinventing a half-baked version of the relational model.

But what I think and what you think isn't the universal rule for the governance of the universe of IT. If these people are inclined to think that this improves productivity, I'm inclined to create a world where we can coexist.

Actually, peaceful coexistence is simple: they work with their databases, and we work with ours. It's when you want actual collaboration that things become difficult. Collaboration requires data exchange. Data exchange requires a common model (at some level).

I'm completely unwilling to store relations in Pick files, or for that matter in Universe databases. I could be convinced otherwise, but I haven't been convinced yet. And I'm not willing to give up relational tables (or their bastard cousins, SQL tables) until I see something that replaces them. And, so far, MV isn't it.

So..... I'm looking for a way in which the relational model can be used as the basis for "large, shared data banks", and where data is shared across mutiple programming environments and multiple mindsets.

So, the MV people get to view the data through an MV lens. The Crystal Reports people get to view the data througha Crystal Reports lens. The Business Objects people get to view the data through a Business Objects lens.

And the "relational model" isn't "king of the hill". It's everybody's servant. Received on Sun Mar 26 2006 - 08:48:02 CST

Original text of this message