Re: A research effort on a computing model...

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:00:34 GMT
Message-ID: <SQNqj.7549$>

"Cimode" <> wrote in message
> On the last years, I have been putting some modest but consistent
> effort to build a computing model whose principles, I embodied under
> the form of a db core that allows relation definition and manipulation
> as well as basic relational operations.
> As a part of a genuine research effort, I hope this computing model
> and subsequent db core
> to be more faithful to core relational principles than what we have
> get accustomed to with
> direct image systems. Because I am getting closer to draw out a first
> stable version of
> it (probably end of 2008) that I plan on making open source (a mix of
> assembly and C), I
> would like to share some of the aspects of this model to have some
> feedback and eventually
> correct some mistakes I may have mislooked or underestimated.
> I always felt frustrated that we are using systems that are not
> delivering the tenth of what RM promesses so here are some
> achievements/aspects (I let you decide) of how this db core may get us
> one step closer to what could be a TRDBMS. A a note, I have made which
> may seem *unconventional* but nevertheless have serious fundamental
> justifications I would be happy to
> discuss or amend if I am wrong.
> The computing model has the following features and characteristics:
> About the computing model and core fundamental concepts...
>> The computing model and subsequent db core exclusively respects binary
>> logic.
>> The model and implemented system has 3 layers of abstraction: the media
>> layer(that represents the methodology and protocols used to presents
>> information to the user), the
> logical and the physical layer.
>> The subsequent core uses new algorhytms that allow, based on a specific
>> logical representation, to bind relational concepts to rules of
>> probability to set theory to represents sets in a way I have never
>> observed elsewhere. The immediate consequence of such relationship is to
>> allow the minimization the number of logical reads and writes at run time
>> but not only. The systems also allows to exploit in an interesting way
>> properties such as symmetry or commutativity.
>> Relation definition is done exclusively through domain definition and
>> constraints addition/update on attributes.
>> Basic inter relation operations are supported.
>> The notion of relation is equated with the notion of type. A new
>> relation *de facto* constitutes a new type that may be reused in other
>> relation definitions.
>> The system supports subtyping and makes more practical relation
>> decomposition. It makes
> use of the only useful concept in OO: inheritance
> About a possible language and opportunities of presented by the
> sublanguage
>> The SQL SELECT verb is not used. Only WITH is emphasized to express
>> conditionality
> carrying over an atribute.
>> The SQL INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE verbs are not used to the profit of more
>> generic MAKE
> associated with WHEN (in case of UPDATE) to modify the body of a
> relation. The purpose of
> the WHEN verb is to reflect the dynamic nature of a specific relation.
>> The concept of table in a SQL sense totally disappears. A relation has a
>> runtime logical
> representation that must explicitely be embodied as what is required
> in the media layer.
> For instance, I use the PRESENT2D verb and associate it to the
> relation definition to represent data as a table. To put it short,
> the compiler I am currently working on allows to write
> PRESENT2D -->states that the expected presentation layer is a
> bidimensional table
> Example using the PART relation with PART: {number, name}
> By supposing, I would need to send by FTP the output of the PART
> relation then I
> would simply write:
> SENDFTP('') [PART WITH NAME = 'screw']
> But I can also write...
> [MAKE PART = 'other' WHEN NAME NOT 'screw'] in case of UPDATE of PARTS
> not being 'screw'
> and...
> [MAKE PART = 1, 'other'] in case of an INSERT of an additional row
> and...
> [MAKE PART = PART MINUS [PART WITH NAME = 'screw']] in case of trying
> of a DELETE of all PARTS with name 'screw'
> These are the basics but the grammatical and semantic separation
> allows interesting
> properties when expressing more complex operations.
> On the logical side of things...
>> Logical order is never a prerequisite in logical layer for operating
>> relations.
>> The concept of key does not exists as well as the concept of primary key
>> in the traditional SQL sense. The unique identifier is *de facto* a
>> total set of attributes constituing the relation.
>> The concept of foreign key does not exist as well for the same above
>> reason.

Trivializing functional dependencies? Eliminating inclusion dependencies? Sounds to me like you'll have a big job selling that.

>> Based on the above principles, dupplicates as a result of an insert are
>> impossible. The
> system automatically discards any dupplicate that may potentially be
> the output of an
> insert operation.
>> Based on the above principles, dupplicates as a result of update are
>> impossible. The
> system automatically discards any dupplicate that may potentially be
> the output of an
> update.
> On the physical side of things...
>> Physical order is irrelevant because of the nature of physical data
>> organization.
>> No indexing scheme of any kind is used.
>> As a consequence of non direct image representation, the size of physical
>> files may actually decrease as the number of tuples increases.
>> Operations are exclusively done on disk. No RAM caching of any sort is
>> performed to operate relations.
>> As far as response time is concerned, I have no PRESENT2D statement
>> running above 5ms (7200 rpm), no matter how big the table (up to the
>> limit of 64 bits memory registers). Response time increase as the number
>> of rows increases is quasi neglectable.
> There are many many other things I would like to add but I will try
> instead to put it as part of a future documentation. Any comments
> would be appreciated. Just keep in mind that this is a single man's
> research effort far from being perfect, I am aware of it. So please
> don't be too harsh.
Received on Fri Feb 08 2008 - 02:00:34 CET

Original text of this message