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: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 16 Jun 2006 06:53:50 -0700
Message-ID: <1150466030.314117.84540@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>


I see that BB has not adressed any response to the below questions...

Listenning....(after couple rings I will give up which will be a nice way to demonstrate all stated was right....)

Cimode wrote:
> I know BB won't probably read this thread as he probably used his
> magical *twit filter* to discard my post but I want to point out out
> the issue of his misunderstanding and bad faith on this thread.
>
> The object of the argument was that I considered physical
> representation of SQL table on all current implementation as purely
> bidimensional or tridimensional depending on the adressing scheme used
> at physical level of RAM implementation. Mister BB has advocated the
> opposite stating that physical implementation are multidimensional and
> that stated that RAM adresses are linear.
>
> I state that BB is wrong in saying RAM SQL tables representations are
> multidimensional...
>
> A multidimensional physical representation of a N dimension relvar
> supposes it can be represented through an N-ary coordinate system
> equivalent at physical level. Otherly said, any SQL datum location on
> that physical memory should have then an N-ary system of coordinates to
> locate it in RAM.
>
> Such system does not exist. Most RAM architectures memory is addressed
> with a 32-bit address (or 36-bit if PAE is enabled). But those
> addresses are translated by the memory controller to a physical address
> that identifies which bank, row, and column the memory actually resides
> in. In latest Dual Core Opteron CPU's the memory controller has been
> directly integrated into the CPU which allows direct physical
> referencing without need of translation and took away the need for
> using linear adressing.
>
> That proves 2 things:
> > When stating that RAM is linear, BB has proved that he ignores what
> a physical memory architecture is. He proved he does not make a
> difference between a logical linear adressing scheme at CPU level and a
> physical adressing scheme at RAM (memory controller). I clearly
> pointed out this confusion to him and he chose to persist.
> > To be considered multidimensional at physical level a SQL Table
> should have all the datum embodying it located through an N-ary
> physical adressing scheme as opposed to a trinary system.
>
> For instance, considering the following SQL Table
>
> Datum1, Datum2, Datum3, Datum4
> Datum5, Datum6, Datum7, Datum8
> Datum9, Datum10, Datum11, Datum12
>
>
> In a multidimensional physical RAM, it should be possible to represent
> and locate it at least through N physical coordinates.
>
> --> MEMORY CONTROLER
>
> locates Datum1 at (A1, A2, A3, A4...A-N)
> locates Datum2 at (A1, A6, A7, A4...A-N)
> locates Datum3 at (A1, A2, A3, A4...A-N)
> and so forth....
>
> Needless to such a physical RAM system does not exist. Therefore, it
> proves SQL Table is NOT multidimensional at physical level. Its
> representation and handling is necessarily determined by the RAM
> adressing scheme used by the memory controler.
>
> To make sure I was not missing anything which could have proved me
> wrong I have re-read the thread and even checked BB link to try to
> understand his point of view. It was a pure waste of time as any of
> the reading done has been relevant to subject treated.
>
> Considering the following:
>
> > BB claimed that I insulted people without proving it. He used this occasion to tell me "go fuck myself". As a response, I have stated that I would only respond to his non insulting posts.
> > By respect, I have clearly provided responses to all questions brought by the so-called *educator(s)*. The opposite is not true.
> > I have pointed out to at several occasions the level of confusion at BB and demonstrated through logical argumentation. His only response was insults and irrelevant comments.
>
> I consider that unless he acknowledges he was wrong, which I strongly
> doubt, or proves me wrong responding to this question, he just has
> lost all credibility I was willing to give him. Listenning. Probable
> answers:
>
> > No response...(let's see if the *plonk* system works ;))
> > Irrelevant and off topic responses (talking about something else to divert attention on current subject)
> > Insults
> > ?
>
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> >
> > > Cimode ha escrito:
> > >
> > >> The question is whether OO in-memory
> > >>mechanisms could support such effort. And how?
> > >
> > > The answer is evident to me: OO has nothing to offer. Both things are
> > > completely unrelated.
> >
> > Hear! Hear!
Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 08:53:50 CDT

Original text of this message

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