Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

Bob Badour wrote:
> B Faux wrote:
>
> > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1145376755.915329.326680_at_z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Tedd wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sounds like the short answer to my question is nobody on this newsgroup
> >>>really knows why folks like those listed in Dawn's earlier post would
> >>>use multivalue over relational. Of course, opinions abound!
> >>
> >>And no one really knows whether or why a company saves considerable
> >>dollars when they employ such systems. But having done considerable
> >>research on it, I have some more clues than when I started. In short,
> >>the data model for these products is far more flexible than the RM.
> >>This seems to translate into dollar savings, possibly even considerable
> >>dollar savings, over time. This is an opinion, but not just an
> >>off-the-top-of-the-head opinion.
> >>
> >>Cheers! --dawn
>
> Given the source, the more effort she put into it, the farther from
> reality the likely outcome will be.
>
>
> > Another (rather obvious) problem with the comparison is it would require
> > identical applications using the different approaches and tested over time
> > for all costs associated with each technique.
>
> All it really requires is the ability to think and reason in the
> abstract. I have yet to meet a Pick advocate with such capability.

Does voicing this type of opinion really add to the discussion, Bob? There was a time when I lived in ring theory, although that was many years ago. You know that I'm quite capable of thinking and reasoning in the abstract, even if I'm relatively new to studying relational theory in any way (and not willing to spend too much time getting too far from practice).

It is the fact that the theory that seemed most rational to me (the RM) and what I have seen in practice (fewer dollars spent on MV development) are in conflict that brought me here. Most pickies are not torn by this conflict and are quite willing to let the dollars do the talking. I would like to get theory and practice better aligned. We don't need theories that sound rational and miss the mark in practice, right? So, yes, I can think in the abstract, but that isn't where I want to spend all of my time. I want the application of the theories to make good technical and business sense. --dawn Received on Tue Apr 18 2006 - 22:09:55 CEST