Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

From: B Faux <>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:41:35 GMT
Message-ID: <j9R%f.9970$>

"x" <> wrote in message news:e1oefh$pae$
> "Neo" <> wrote in message
>> > > ... as many as 50 or 60 vertical rectangular blocks
>> > Mine shows around 265 such rectangular blocks and it's growing.
>> Then why is it you haven't posted any sensical/practical/verifiable
>> solutions to the various problems that I assert are impractical with
>> RMDBs? (It *seems* you would have to be quite skilled with RMDBs to deal
>> with such large schemas and still have a lot of time left over to post
>> as frequently as you do in c.d.t.)
> It only seems so. :-)
> I don't use colored marker and paper for changing the schema. I use a
> database.
>> > > If there is a more appropriate term [for schema], please advise.
>> > Diagram ? Drawing ?
>> Thanks, while either of these words could be used, schema seems more
>> appropriate as it conveys that concept of detailed structure more
>> accurately. How do you and others who use your schema with 265 tables
>> refer to it?
> There is a difference between a schema and a drawing of a schema.


The main difference is if it is actually implemented or not. I would dearly like to hear how dead simple your implementation of the "...265 such blocks and growing..." RMDB was done. Or has it actually been done yet? Is it perhaps in 'perpetual development' because the job it is expected to accomplish keeps changing scope? And if it is actually in production (i.e., being used in the real world), how many people are employed full time to keep it working?

The reason that so many companies (noted earlier by 'dawn') are using alternatives to RM is that they can get there from here much faster and with much less overhead. Just Google the recent experience of Reynolds and Reynolds in their attempt to shift their product from an MV implementation to an SQL implementation (I believe they flushed more than 60 million dollars down the drain with zero deliverable to show for it.)

Theory is great when you can get paid to not actually implement anything... Just sayin'

BFaux - Received on Fri Apr 14 2006 - 19:41:35 CEST

Original text of this message