Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145300763.717197.303750_at_v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Tedd wrote:
> > I'm curious to know why those companies use multivalue databases.

> Yes, I am too. This has been my curiousity and off-and-on area of
> research for the past few years. In spite of having seen numerous
> beneifts to the MV model resulting in what appeared to me to be
> significant budget savings, I was touting the benefits of the RM,
> normalization, constraints, etc and advising folks to move away from
> their Pick/MV databases a few short years ago (2001 was likely the last
> time I was in that camp). My thinking was that products like Oracle,
> DB2, and SQL Server were making enough gains in tackling some of the
> benefits of MV (with changes in SQL: '99 and products adding features
> unrelated to the RM, for example) and had the added benefit of
> standardization (e.g. ability to point Excel at an ODBC data source)
> and the mathematical elegance of the RM (e.g. set processing and
> modeling constraints and facts as propositions, then employing
> predicate logic).

I think you are right in practice and wrong in theory :-) I think the programmers are more productive with the tools that make sense to them.
When in school, after "learning" some relational model theory (I don't really learned it in school, but after reading the Codd's papers) I could not comprehend SQL. By contrast I had little problems with QBE (not the one in MS Access which does not make sense to me).

When I cannot understand something I suspect something is fishy about it. Received on Tue Apr 18 2006 - 10:07:33 CEST