Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?
Date: 4 May 2006 15:26:49 -0700
Message-ID: <1146781609.801206.148540_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
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.
> 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.
> 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.
- Jan Hidders