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: A better SQL implementation?

Re: A better SQL implementation?

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 8 Jun 2006 04:47:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1149767274.164265.249720@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Concerning the following query using the Document data type:

Select * from Document where parag = 'kw1' and parag = 'kw2'

Looking at the paper, you can see that the author declares the following according to the query:

"It should be noted that the above select would give zero results for any SQL database other than Atlas, since a single column cannot contain more than one value. "

David Portas wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Below is a link to a friend's website who developped his own
> > implementation of SQL considering that all current SQL implementations
> > are unefficient. This SQL is embedded into his database engine (Atlas)
> > Atlas defined a DBMS *set system* as a reference to set theory.
> >
> > As an indicative annotation, he was a part of the developping team that
> > worked on System-R.
> >
> > He has an interesting truth based historical perspective about
> > evolution of SQL implementations from early days and supports that SQL
> > should have been implemented otherwise. Here's a link to a white paper
> > put on his website. I would like your opinion on that.
> >
> > http://www.armadillo.fr/english/whitepapers/WHITEPAPER_2004.htm
>
>
> Cimode wrote:
> > Below is a link to a friend's website who developped his own
> > implementation of SQL considering that all current SQL implementations
> > are unefficient. This SQL is embedded into his database engine (Atlas)
> > Atlas defined a DBMS *set system* as a reference to set theory.
> >
> > As an indicative annotation, he was a part of the developping team that
> > worked on System-R.
> >
> > He has an interesting truth based historical perspective about
> > evolution of SQL implementations from early days and supports that SQL
> > should have been implemented otherwise. Here's a link to a white paper
> > put on his website. I would like your opinion on that.
> >
> > http://www.armadillo.fr/english/whitepapers/WHITEPAPER_2004.htm
>
> The paper is rather confusing to me. It claims the index structure is
> the novel feature of Atlas but the author doesn't explain what the
> index structure is or how it differs from other indexes. The only clue
> is the diagram of "Normal" vs "Set" indexes but those terms and the
> diagrams are strange to me and they explain nothing. How does this
> system compare to bitmap indexes? Hashing? B-trees? Clustering? etc.
>
> Throughout there seems to be the mistaken idea that SQL is a set-based
> data model and language. Informally, we often say that (I do anyway)
> but that's not really good enough for a serious discussion about
> database design and implementation.
>
> Then there is this:
>
> Select * from Document where parag = 'kw1' and parag = 'kw2'
>
> If the author wants that statement to return anything other than zero
> rows then he has to define a whole new SQL syntax and apparently a
> different *logical* data model as well. He obviously isn't using SQL's
> model. But none of that is explained other than with trivial examples.
> Where is the grammar that describes the language he has used? Where is
> the formal specification of the data model?
>
> Finally, since Atlas is neither SQL nor Relational why bother making it
> look like SQL at all? If the author thinks we need a new data model or
> a better language then better design one without all the baggage and
> the mistakes that have hindered SQL from the start. He patently isn't
> doing that. For example, SELECT * implies that logical column order is
> still a "feature" of his SQL. He even allows tables without keys. I
> can't understand why anyone who was serious about reforming SQL would
> keep such huge flaws in the language.
>
> --
> David Portas
Received on Thu Jun 08 2006 - 06:47:54 CDT

Original text of this message

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