Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:41:22 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad7dd58$0$23757$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>> paul c wrote:
>> ...
>> I hope the SAP example shows that's simply not the case. 500 tables is
>> considered to be medium-sized in my experience.
>>
>> Last year I used CQL to model motor vehicle insurance claims. The model
>> had 100 nouns, though the database was only 18 tables. It did not include
>> most of the complexity of motor vehicle insurance, did not model the
>> policy,
>> underwriting, insurance history, nor many other facets; and this
>> organisation
>> handled more than twenty other types of insurance.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:41:22 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad7dd58$0$23757$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> Clifford Heath wrote: >
>> paul c wrote:
>> ...
>> I hope the SAP example shows that's simply not the case. 500 tables is
>> considered to be medium-sized in my experience.
>>
>> Last year I used CQL to model motor vehicle insurance claims. The model
>> had 100 nouns, though the database was only 18 tables. It did not include
>> most of the complexity of motor vehicle insurance, did not model the
>> policy,
>> underwriting, insurance history, nor many other facets; and this
>> organisation
>> handled more than twenty other types of insurance.
> > Thanks for that prompt, SAP was one of the products I had in mind. I'm > very curious to what extent SAP uses views. I gather that it runs on > SQL server, Oracle and perhaps other dbms'. Does it use some subterfuge > to update/insert/delete to/from views? Does it implement its own > integrity mechanisms to get around the various inadequacies of those dbms'?