Re: Sigh... the evil that google does...
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 01:02:52 GMT
Message-ID: <0BrVj.131064$Cj7.105909_at_pd7urf2no>
Bob Badour wrote:
> l.jarvensivu_at_gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hehe, and google autosuggested this place for me. I suppose google >> feels I've got alot in common with porn spam,
>
> That's only a recent thing, but I am sad to say it seems to have dried
> up the on-topic conversations.
Alright, here's an old topic, the trans-relational model. (At one time, I was intrigued by it, since I don't live in the USA and therefore could ignore US patents if I wanted to try to make money off it.) One claim for it was that certain run-time sorts or index builds could be eliminated, although I seem to remember one of the big names cautioning that there might always be a 'preferred order' (sorry if I've mis-quoted and I don't mean to be sly, the people who publicized it remain deep thinkers in my book). After some study, undoubtedly inferior in parts, I concluded that one could accomplish the same 'physical' effect if every 'column' were indexed.
I don't remember this aspect of that model ever being discussed here but I contend it is just as reasonable as Codd's original intent, which was in part to make access to data storage more intuitive.
Of course, I'd agree if Bob B said he was finding plonk maintenance onerous these days, but I have my own kind of plonk to fall back on. If it wasn't already my practice, I'd have said the current state of cdt was driving me to drink. Received on Sun May 11 2008 - 03:02:52 CEST