Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 23:44:06 GMT
Message-ID: <alw6g.3321$A26.87009@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Jan Hidders wrote:

> dawn wrote:
>

>>Jan Hidders wrote:
>>
>>>dawn wrote:
>>>
>>>>OK, so you told me the jury was out regarding modeling and implementing
>>>>with non-1NF data (or something like that);
>>>
>>>Not exactly. What the jury is out on is whether you can still have both
>>>efficiency and data-independence at the same time, which requires
>>>powerful query optimization.
>>
>>Ah, that data independence thing again.

>
> Yep.
>

>>There are plenty of
>>requirements and I definitely do not want changes in the need for
>>additional disk or any physical changes like that to prompt a change in
>>software, but I still don't grok this requirement fully.

>
> ?? That has only marginally to do with data independence.

Shouldn't it suffice to point her to the principle of separating concerns or the concept of orthogonality? After all, she claims to have a background in mathematics.

>>For example, do we want the requirement that if data are moved from
>>schema-A on host-A managed by subsidiary-A to schema-B on host-B
>>managed by subsidiary-B, then must not be a need to change the logical
>>data model used by the applications, so that applications can run
>>without changes simply by redirecting (outside of the apps) requests
>>for such data to another data source?  Obviously, that would be nice.

>
> ?? That is also not really a typical case of data independence.
>
> Are you seriously telling me you do not understand the fact that if I
> organize the same data differently on my disks this influences my
> ability to efficiently answer certain queries? Have you never done any
> programming that concerned disk-based data structures and algorithms
> that went beyond the trivial? Your comments give this impression.

Is that a polite way of saying she is a self aggrandizing ignorant?

>>I'd like to take the overall functional requirements for a database
>>management system (which are not the same for every organization, I
>>will grant) and optimize all together rather than declaring a single
>>non-functional requirement as fixed in stone, while users might not get
>>what they need.  Obviously, we want to have maintainability,
>>reliability, security, and all other non-functional requirements met,
>>but these need to be turned into functional requirements, it seems,
>>before they can be tested.

>
> Depends a bit on your notion of 'functional requirement' but things
> like security can certainly judge by the presence or absence of certain
> features.
>
> I think I'll stop here. Not that I don't have anything to say about
> your other comments, but my time is limited, my girl-friend is getting
> impatient, and I'd rather focus on one or two points than have ten
> micro-debates within a discussion.

Yay! We have an ally!

Ask yourself: Is reading the voluminous posts of a handful of cranks an effective way to manage your time? How much time does it take each day? What benefits do you get from reading all of that stuff? How many decent pedagogic opportunities arise? Would you find similar opportunities if you just read posts by other people? Would you get the same personal benefits?

Now consider your other options. What benefits would you get from devoting more time to your girlfriend? How much value would she place on that time?

Ask yourself if you could achieve more with your participation here with less investment of time and energy while freeing up time for better things? Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 18:44:06 CDT