Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

ralphbecket_at_gmail.com wrote:

> A number of people on this group are proponents of
> Pick (MultiValue) DBMS. I've been trying to find a
> definition for MultiValue to give me a better handle
> on the arguments MV types often advance against
> the relational model.
>
> [snip]
>
> That said, debate on the topic still goes on and on
> in this group, so I assume I have failed to grasp
> something important about MV.

The Pickies are self-aggrandizing ignorants who are undeterred by either their ignorance or their stupidity. Hence the endless 'debate'.

Rational thinking people will have concluded years ago that pick is a primitive file processor with no integrity function whatsoever and a seriously crippled manipulation function.

That said, you are confusing two parallel comparisons: MV (or NFNF) vs RM is one comparison, pick (or any other primitive file processor) vs any real DBMS is another comparison.

NFNF = not first normal form
RM = relational model ie. first normal form and above DBMS = database management system

> Is there a clear,
> *concise* explanation somewhere of (a) a formal
> (preferably set theoretic) model of MV, and (b)
> how integrity constraints are expressed and enforced
> in an MV database?

The NFNF proponents do not agree on a single model. The models that exist seem quite arbitrary. Certainly, any I have examined have had serious and obvious flaws.

> (On www.pickwiki.com I came across "A formal
> mathematical critique of Relational Theory and its
> MultiValue opposition", which I hoped would be a
> lucid expression of the MV vs RM position, but
> unfortunately it turned out to be just plain wrong
> where it wasn't incoherent.)

"Plain wrong" and "incoherent" are exactly what I expect from the pick crowd. I concluded three years ago that prolonged pick use causes severe cognitive damage. Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 15:49:57 CEST