On Feb 27, 7:09 am, "frebe" <freb..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> "A typical SQL DBMS requires _drastically_ faster hardware than a
> hierarchical database to provide even roughly equivalent response time
> -- to the point that a SQL DBMS running on current hardware is about
> the
> same speed (or slighthly slower) than a hierarchical database was
> around
> 25 years ago, running on hardware that was current at the time.
>
> As far as normalization goes: back then, normalization was a way of
> life
> -- normalization reduces redundancy, and given the cost of storage at
> the time, redundancy was _expensive_ (even ignoring inflation, one
> month's rent on a 1.8 GB disk drive in 1982 would buy enough disks for
> quite a large RAID today). "
>
> Any comments?
- It's been pretty well established that comp.object and
comp.databases.theory have nothing productive to say to each other.
- Author makes hilarious performance claims out of thin air but
doesn't support them.
- The purpose of normalization is to eliminate update anomalies, not
to reduce storage.
Marshall
Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 09:25:01 CST
