Re: Sensible and NonsenSQL Aspects of the NoSQL Hoopla

Am Freitag, 22. März 2013 10:29:10 UTC+1 schrieb Jan Hidders:
> One of the best and most insightful reads in the SQL vs noSQL debate
>
> I've seen lately:
>
>
>
> http://www.edbt.org/Proceedings/2013-Genova/papers/edbt/a2-mohan.pdf
>
>
>
> -- Jan Hidders

It's a nice paper, but due to sloppy terminology it misses vital points:

• With database cursors and indizes there are only "Not only SQL" systems.
• Transactions are no part of the relational model
• The relational modell is never "correct" implemented. Without "holographic" storage media I see no way to implement "tables" where "row- and column order are insignificant". Defining relations as a "interface" views of storage objects leads to practical, but "pseudo" relational systems.
• The real problem of NoSQL systems is the missing of a standard for "system catalogs" as a repository for metadata. Mixing metadata and data as a solution for large "sparse" tables is nice, but not a full substitute for a metadata repository.

The "SQL vs noSQL debate" is fruitless, unless Codd's theory will finally be consolidated. Looking into Codd's paper of 1970 You will find:

• Normalization and 1NF is a "workaround" to avoid "too complicated datastructures". A sound idea 1970 with Fortran, Assembler and PreAnsiC it was never revised
• Defining relations and tuples only via it's contents limits the "physical data independence" to "record oriented storages". "Column oriented storages" needs additional data for mapping (rowid)
• Relation and tuples seems to e a blurred vision of object oriented storage management. Accepting the object nature of relations and tuples, many problems (missing data, identity, table inheritance ... ) simply disappear

m.f.G.

Karl Scheurer    Received on Wed Aug 21 2013 - 15:24:54 CEST