Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:36:42 -0700
On 20 Apr 2006 11:27:09 -0700, "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>B Faux wrote:
>> In most theoretical analysis, processing outcomes are not relevant.
>The theoreticaly analyses I have read have put outcomes as
>> The details of storage, retrieval, optimisation, constraints (rules),
>> etc is of primary concern.
>You're sort of mixing logical and physical issues together here.
>Both are important. Are you trying to say these things to not
>effect processing outcomes?
>> An abstract theoretical manipulaton of data within the
>> confines of a file system is all that is examined, in sometimes excrutiating
>Something can't be both abstract, and within the confines of
>a file system at the same time. This statement strikes me
>> Underlying operating systems, microprocessor specifications, memory
>> use and allocation, rarely (if ever) enters into the discussion.
>Really? I've read plenty of DBMS theory papers in which memory use
>and allocation was the primary concern. I've also read papers
>where processor architecture was discussed. (Operating systems
>not so much, though.)
>> The idea is that given a compelling prototypical design,
>> the rest of it will be made to fit in any way possible to
>> support the design.
>I've never heard this idea from the RM camp. Do you have
BTW, Marshall, the claims you are challenging are typical of the BS. Rather drowns out the good stuff, no?
Gene Wirchenko Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 22:36:42 CEST