Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?
Date: 30 Apr 2006 06:51:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1146405119.341278.269600_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
dawn wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
> > dawn wrote:
> > >
> > > My goals would still include getting the word out about this fatality.
> > > I doubt many undergraduate courses teach that 1NF, as we knew it, is
> > > dead, for example. I sure don't see that knowledge having made it into
> > > the practitioners "common knowledge" as yet.
> >
> > It shouldn't.
>
> Yes, it should. Should all XML documents be in 1NF? If not, why not?
> Even if you don't like the lack of DBMS-defined constraints on
> the way in, those are not required for determining read-only query
> performance. Unfortunately, there are no industry performance measures
> of which I am aware that are not designed strictly for SQL-DBMS's (or
> do you know of some?)
Simply translate they SQL queries to queries in the ad-hoc query language of your favorite system. Presuming, of course, that this ad-hoc query language is powerful enough. Any extra required programming would of course make the comparison meaningless.
- Jan Hidders