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: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

From: Dmitry Shuklin <shuklin_at_bk.ru>
Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:43:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1173721397.626646.130470@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>


Hello,

On 10 mar, 06:02, JXStern <JXSternChange..._at_gte.net> wrote:

> If you follow the normalization rules for 3NF, you constrain the
> object structures and instances, how about that?

yes, but I can break 3NF in my OODB. I can dynamically add some attribute to some node. It is not reflects on all other rows, stored in a table and don't reflects on table interface. It is very effective way to solve EAV problems. Each instance can have its own unique set of attributes, up to 4G

> And if you don't,
> then you give up the ability to run SQL efficiently, or at all,
> against the database.

I don't provide SQL. I am using C# instead of SQL. Some declarative query language which looks like SQL is in implementation now but not yet available for download.

> Vtbl sucks

May be, but very fast in implementation.

> But if those pointers do not follow normalization rules, you lose the
> underlying RDBMS. Is anything lost by using keys?

I am really want to lose RDBMS and not needed it at all ))) But I want be able do all what RDBMS do. If it will be implemented differently - it is ok. I developing network DB not an relational. The idea of this post - network DBMS can do all what can do RDBMS and even more and better.

> That's not news, that an unconstrained description has constrained
> grammers as a subset, that type 0 grammar has type 1,2,3 grammars as
> "special cases", but the general case does not have some of the
> properties of its simplified, special cases.

Agree. But if some system allows to implement type 0 grammar then also it allow implement constrants and emulate type 1,2,3 grammars but not vice versa.

WBR, Dmitry Received on Mon Mar 12 2007 - 12:43:17 CDT

Original text of this message

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