Re: Proposal: 6NF

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 2 Oct 2006 06:58:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1159797534.237592.159150@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

Brian Selzer wrote:
> "Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
> news:P-Sdnd58Trp7GYLYnZ2dnUVZ8tGdnZ2d_at_pipex.net...
> > "David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas_at_acm.org> wrote in message
> > news:1159692483.421785.264660_at_c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Brian Selzer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The argument JOG made focused only on recording information, not
> >>> retrieving
> >>> it. Why would anyone abandon a sound mechanism that can significantly
> >>> reduce the computing capacity required to answer a query?
> >>
> >> Because your argument is merely an assumption based on what some
> >> systems of today are capable of.
> >
> > It's worse. His entire position is based on not knowing even what some of
> > today's products are already capable of. For example, he seems unaware of
> > the role of the optimizer.
> >

>

> I understand fully the role of the optimizer. That's one of my points. If
> you arbitrarily split a table with a nullable column, then you're robbing
> the optimizer of possible execution plans. It may make sense to split a
> table, for example, removing non-key columns that are seldom used in queries
> into another table in order to boost the performance of all other queries.
> The point I'm trying to make is that the decision should not be arbitrary.
Consequences of NULL uses goes far above he simple problem of execution. It hinders performance at all levels (response time, concurrency) and introduces a very strong part of subjectivity in interpretation of data presented to users.

> > Roy.
> >
Received on Mon Oct 02 2006 - 08:58:54 CDT