Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

David Portas wrote:
>
> What multidimensional model? Kimball popularised some methodology and
> some jargon under the Dimensional banner. Some people find such
> terminology useful but it doesn't change the data model. It is still
> relational or SQL. Do you think relational is something other than
> multi-dimensional?

You really gave me some food for thought with this:) Yes, you're right. Only difference is normalization. But software differs drastically, guess this is why I percieved these as totally different things.

Thanks for correction.

> So your preferred model is no model at all. Noted.

Not exactly. My preferred model is the model I choose. Just, I don't believe in universal truths:) Like, we have a perfect model named 'theory of everything' that is completelly useless for anything having more than 10 atoms...:)

> A recursive CTE. More generally speaking the query is just some
> restriction of a transitive closure (ie. it need not be defined
> recursively).

But needs to be iterated regardless, right? If so, it's not relational.
Please explain; I just don't understand how it can be represented as set.

>>Smells like networks are more general however. Each time we draw an ER
>>diagram we prove it;)

Of course that's why I put that winkey there:))

Regards... Received on Thu Jul 20 2006 - 19:30:30 CEST