Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: Pickie <>
Date: 23 Apr 2006 22:06:45 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Hi Bob,

RE 'rare and expert skills' A general purpose dbms is a far more complex affair than an application-specific dbms than CAN be built with Pick. So on this point we are not comparing apples with apples.

RE 'higher level abstractions' I was just pointing out that I was using a non-rigorous term 'model' as opposed to 'Relational Model'

RE 'Dijkstra's comment' Was it the quote about magic elixir? You may dislike Pick, but that's no reason to denigrate anyone just because they use it. As a good workman, I can use a tool even as poor as Pick; while others are still moaning about Oracle and Sybase.

RE Alphora. They may be in business, but are they still in the dbms business? OK, there will be a huge legacy overhang to bring in a better RDBMS, but I didn't expect this crashing silence given Date's enthusiasm. He is a respected figure, after all.

RE Redundancy. Hey, I brought up the redundancy of Indexing originally.  I was clarifying my original post, not replying to an arguement that you hadn't made.

RE Complexity. I suppose you could make the case that time-varying data is not specifically addressed by the RM. That's a point that Date criticises as well. Good point.

Oh by the way, stuff your insults. Received on Mon Apr 24 2006 - 07:06:45 CEST

Original text of this message