Re: data management

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:15:16 GMT
Message-ID: <oMYgg.2120$LN1.1721_at_trndny01>

"mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:44845403$0$31639$
> * changed subject line *
> x wrote:
> > David Cressey wrote:
> >>mAsterdam wrote:
> >>>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
> >>first place. Perhaps the foremost reason.
> >
> > I would say relational databases are more
> > about "finding" than about "searching" :-)
> >
> >>The way relational databases support searches is one reason for choosing
> >>relational database over some other kind. The same comment can be made
> >>regarding SQL databases.
> >
> > The way relational databases support "finding" is one reason for
choosing a
> > database over a file system. :-)


> The need to support searching/finding is a reason
> for building fast access mechanisms, using indexes
> (isam, vsam, ...) or otherwise.

> DBMS's use these access mechanisms and provide an
> easy-to-use interface to them. Anybody who has a
> DBMS can simply use these as features.
> The ease this brings may give valid economical reasons
> to use a DBMS just to take care of searching.

I think you're changing the subject. I suggested that supporting searches was a reason (perhaps THE reason) for building a database. You seem to be addressing the reason for building a DBMS. It isn't the same.

BTW, enabling searches to find something is one way of supporting searches. In fact, searches that don't find anything can only be said to be productive if the fact that they didn't find anything carries some element of unexpectedness.

This could bring us back to the curious incident of the dog in the night. Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 18:15:16 CEST

Original text of this message