Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 00:06:43 GMT
Message-ID: <nGw6g.124252$P01.54910@pd7tw3no>

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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?
> ...

Don't know much about girlfriends except how mine eventually told me how little I know, ie. nothing. But even if he gets in trouble, I hope Jan will take comfort in knowing that he has been performing a public service AFAIAC. Sometimes I think that the world can absorb only small amounts of progress at one time. Sorry for being off-topic, will try to shut up for another month or so.

p Received on Thu May 04 2006 - 19:06:43 CDT