Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Database design ideas or templates...

Re: Database design ideas or templates...

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:42:04 GMT
Message-ID: <wvewg.13361$>

Paul wrote:

> Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>>You didn't mention your db of choice. Nor your OS. Nor your RAM.

>>What the hell makes you think any of that has relevance to a theory 

> The guy is obviously looking for *_practical_* pointers for a solution
> to a problem he has.

Are you some kind of idiot who thinks the theory is impractical? Can you imagine what kind of horrific mess the original poster is going to make by using some recipe in almost complete ignorance?

How the hell is knowing the dbms product name, the OS, or the system capacity going to correct anything so fundamentally wrong?

  I didn't get the impression that his question was
> all that theory based or that he was interested in discussing the
> finer points of the relational model as opposed to <take_your_pick>.

He is obviously an ignorant who doesn't know any better. Only a person who hates him would give him what he asked for.

> As such, practical *_solutions_* are dictated by the nature of the OS,
> RAM and RDBMS that he has - or would you disagree?

No, I disagree. Practical solutions are dictated by the theory. The OS, RAM and RDBMS are of secondary importance because they are very easily changed to achieve whatever performance characteristics one needs. However, no amount of fiddling with OSes, capacities or brands will overcome a shitty design.

> If he has 256 MB of RAM, I wouldn't be relying on Oracle in a
> production environment, whereas Firebird will happily run on 64MB of
> RAM, as will PostgreSQL.

When the hell did he ask you for a recommendation for a dbms brand? All of the above is totally irrelevant to his question. He asked for a logical design he could copy assuming wrongly that it will suit his specific requirements.

> If he's using Windows (likely given that the other "db" was Access),
> then that precludes certain solutions also.

Again, totally fucking irrelevant to his question and to this newsgroup.

> If you didn't give out to him for asking a non-theoretical question,
> then you shouldn't give out to me for answering in a non-theoretical
> way.

There was nothing I could say to the individual that would help him. If I gave him what he asked for, that would harm him greatly. If I gave him what he needed, he would have been offended and ignored what I said in any case. Sometimes, it makes more sense to shut the fuck up. Received on Fri Jul 21 2006 - 19:42:04 CDT

Original text of this message