Re: Object-relational impedence

Brian Selzer wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind_at_technologist.com> wrote in message
> news: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?
> >

>

Where does this figure come from, Rush Dimbulb?

> And that doesn't take into account the maimings, the
> rape rooms and the other tortures that make Abu Gharib seem like Disneyland.
> So just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean that there weren't just and
> sound reasons to remove that monster. And those reasons certainly weren't a
> laughing matter.

>

>


> >> 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

>

>


> >>

> >> >> 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.,

> >> > climate, good-will, etc.)

> >> >

> >>

> >> 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