Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

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
>very important.
>
>
>> 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
>> detail.
>
>Something can't be both abstract, and within the confines of
>a file system at the same time. This statement strikes me
>as self-contracdictory.
>
>
>> 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
>any citations?

     BTW, Marshall, the claims you are challenging are typical of the BS. Rather drowns out the good stuff, no?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 22:36:42 CEST