Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f5ec20ea-5341-405c-9a67-036b0c321183_at_d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Brian Selzer wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:783693cf-0424-4d3c-a16b-30fef9365c04_at_u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Brian Selzer wrote:
> >> "S Perryman" <q_at_q.com> wrote in message news:frot80$5k7$1_at_aioe.org...
> >> > Eric wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2008-03-17, S Perryman <q_at_q.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > SP>For the real-world systems involving "variant records" that I have
> >> > worked
> >> > SP>on (100+ different record types, 100+ different property types) your
> >> > table
> >> > SP>is merely a global variable from hell (as evidenced by the several
> >> > telecoms
> >> > SP>systems that used the same approach in the 1990s and ended up being
> >> > a
> >> > SP>lifetime rewrite and rebuild job whenever types and properties came
> >> > and
> >> > SP>went) .
> >> >
> >> > E>If you build a system around something like that, you are crazy.
> >> >
> >> >>>How *dare* you criticise the mighty "table-oriented" programming !!??
> >> >>>:-)
> >> >
> >> >> I don't know what table-oriented programming is, unless you want to
> >> >> bring up something like Filetab. Any tool can be misused, and this
> >> >> case
> >> >> certainly sound like extreme misuse (of just about anything).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > E>If it is a given that you have to deal with, all you can do is treat
> >> > it
> >> > as
> >> > E>messages and parse them to put the information you need into sensible
> >> > E>structures. This is probably true for a much smaller number of
> >> > variants.
> >> >
> >> >>>The system was just a nightmare (C, Oracle etc) .
> >> >>>A relational *data* base was completely the wrong impl technology for
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>problem.
> >> >
> >> >>>And the developers could not be blamed for anything that they wrote (I
> >> >>>saw
> >> >>>the code) .
> >> >
> >> >> That just means that their idea of how to program with an RDBMS was
> >> >> similar to yours. Maybe you and they are both wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe they and I were in fact right.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>Their DB schema was normalised etc as expected (each type had a set of
> >> >>>attribute properties, those properties could be sets, sequences,
> >> >>>record
> >> >>>types, collections of refs to instances of other types etc) .
> >> >
> >> >> Sounds like an EntityAttributeValue system - we _know_ that they are
> >> >> silly.
> >> >
> >> > Feel free to search on "OSI network management" , "CMIS" etc.
> >> > That will tell you sufficient about the subject domain for which they
> >> > were using an RDBMS as an impl technology.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>The performance of the system (meta-type checking, property id
> >> >>>retrieval,
> >> >>>retrieving messages from real equipment and putting property info into
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>correct tables etc) was just dire as a result of the operational
> >> >>>sequence.
> >> >
> >> >>>And this was for a system that only represented a manager-side view of
> >> >>>a network of a few hundred equipment instances. If this approach had
> >> >>>been
> >> >>>used for subsequent systems I worked on (the equipment-side view, for
> >> >>>a
> >> >>>network of *500,000* telephone lines) , the developers would have been
> >> >>>shot.
> >> >
> >> >>>It was such dis-crediting of RDBMS at the time (1991-1995) that led to
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>rise of OODBMS in the telecoms arena (at that time OODBs only had a
> >> >>>foot-
> >> >>>hold in the CAD/CAM arena) . The performance difference was orders of
> >> >>>magnitudes.
> >> >
> >> >> Somebody designed and built a bad system, so you blame the tools they
> >> >> used. Oh, no, hang on, you just blamed one of the tools. All the other
> >> >> tools and platforms, all the designers and programmers, they were
> >> >> perfect.
> >> >
> >> > What are you on about ?? What *other* "tools and platforms" ??
> >> >
> >> > Their system used an RDBMS. And it performed poorly.
> >> > The same systems subsequently built on the same platforms (HW, OS,
> >> > comms,
> >> > prog langs etc) , but using an OODBMS instead, performed orders of
> >> > magnitude better.
> >> >
> >> > That's life.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Funny, but this "orders of magnitude better" claim sounds like something
> >> a
> >> shifty politician like Barack Hussein Obama would say. He can supposedly
> >> turn a whole lot of nothing into something that makes women swoon.
> >> Politicians--especially Dimocrats, but not exclusively--play on the
> >> ignorance of their constituents by telling only part of the story.
> >
> > Uh uh politics!
> >
> > We need somebody like G.W.Bush to set everything right and give us the
> > full story {cough} {cough} {cough}.
> >
>
> I used to like Bush. I voted for him twice.
Even in 2004 when it was clear that Iraq was a joke?
> But I'm disappointed. We've
> got millions of squatters here with many more pouring in every day. These
> criminals drain local economies. More police are required to deal with the
> increased crime; more space is required in prisons to house their more
> desparate and violent elements. They also crowd emergency rooms, thus
> driving up the price of health care and reducing availability to law-abiding
> citizens. The fence that should have already been built has barely even
> begun to be constructed. It's a bleeding wound. You would think that Bush
> would at least put a band-aid on it--especially since Congress actually
> appropriated monies for it.
Move to the colder north. Most undocumented visitors are from warm countries and are not fond of cold. But many welcome them because they provide (illegally) cheap services such as lawn care. Everybody wants a bargain....until their job is lost to such laborers. Sort of like our oil addiction.
>> > climate, good-will, etc.)
> >> Take for
> >> example the hysteria over global warming. The disasters and horrors that
> >> are predicted by the left-wing lunatics can only happen if the globe
> >> warms
> >> by at least 5 or 6 degrees, but in the last 100 years, the globe has only
> >> warmed by about half a degree.
> >
> > Yeah, let the kids worry about floods and drought; we'll be dead by
> > then. Typical repub: dump problem on the next generation (debt.,
> >
>
> At the rate of global temperature increase, it won't be my kids, or my kids'
> kids, but fifty generations down the road. Count 'em, fifty! By then all
> of the fossil fuels will have long since been exhausted, and the climate
> will have adjusted itself accordingly.
>
> Just a little tidbit of information that you appear not to know: the Dims
> controlled the Senate for nearly half of Bush's Presidency. Remember
> Jumpin' Jim Jeffords? Even in those years that they didn't, they still had
> enough power to block any legislation that they didn't like. News-flash:
> you need 60 votes in the Senate to limit debate--that is, to prevent a
> filibuster. That means that you need 60 votes to get anything done. That's
> why it seems that nothing ever gets done (and that's probably a good thing).
You are assuming that all GOP's are the same and all Dems are the same. They are not. They have differing opinions, and party affiliation is an oversimplification. Plus, W is playing a Game of Chicken with our troop supplies. Received on Wed Mar 19 2008 - 22:01:08 CET