Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: OT fallacies

Re: OT fallacies

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:46:08 GMT
Message-ID: <AAWgg.2102$LN1.1229@trndny01>

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:448413b5$0$31644$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> Patrick May wrote:
> > I did not find him backing up his claims regarding Mr. Martin's
> > "foolishness". Can you or can you not point out a specific example of
> > him doing so?
>
> > Robert Martin ha escrito:
> >
> >>> Ridiculous. OO and RDB coexist very nicely together. I've never heard
> >>> anyone suggest that searches aren't needed.
> >
> > Relational databases have nothing to do with searches.
> > This shows profound ignorance about data management theory.
>
>

I disagree with both points.

The need to support searches is one reason for building a database in the first place. Perhaps the foremost reason.

The way relational databases support searches is one reason for choosing a relational database over some other kind. The same comment can be made regarding SQL databases.

Further, claiming that OO and RDB can coexist very nicely does not even begin to demonstrate that the author is ignorant of data managment theory, any more that anyone else.

As for me, I've seen a number of cases where OO and RDB did NOT coexist very nicely, so the claim that they CAN coexist very nicely carries some element of surprise for me. I'm skeptical, but I'm not about to dsimiss it as ignorant. Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 08:46:08 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US