Re: Why are [Database] Mathematicians Crippled ?

Questions that are closely related to this thread.

> On Thursday, 1 January 2015 09:23:14 UTC+11, in the Need Tutoring on Relational Calculus thread, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:35:25 -0500
> ruben safir <ruben_at_mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
> > The concepts of normalization have undergone an up and down road
> > nearly from the beginning. The more you read them, you more you
> > realize that as a model normalization is a failure.

That is a widely held opinion, opinion amongst the student and plebians in the RDB implementer space. Note, as a result of their struggles with Normalisation. Question:

What is the reason, that they have that common experience, that common opinion ? Forty five years after the RM; thirty one years after RDBMS; hundreds of books ?

> I can think of no way in which "normalization is a failure". It's the
> programmer's precept of "don't repeat yourself" wrought in tablular
> form.

Agreed, btw.

Which means, you understand that Normalisation is a science, a principle, applicable to more than just data.

> Because relatively few programmers, even very good ones, understand the
> RM, the odds of you finding one who does are slim.

Agreed.

> That's a
> longstanding problem, and one of the reasons for the poor shape of the
> DBMS market.

Question: Why is that so ? Forty five years after the RM; thirty one years after RDBMS; hundreds of books ?

I do not accept that it is the implementer's fault, or the student's fault.

Given:
> That's part of the beauty of the model and why Codd developed it:
relations are easy to understand and develop intuition for.

which I agree with, in that case, why is everything (database tehory; Nomalisation) so hard, so unknown, so screwed up ? Why, after forty five years since Codd's model, is it LESS understood and applied ?

> One of the problems with database theory is the
average quality of the literature you find online.

Agreed, strongly.

What about the literature in textbooks, used in university courses ? What about the books written for implementers ?

Note the evidence, in the application of said theory, in the field. I estimate, after careful consideration, that of the declared "RDB" implementations, 95% are in fact Record Filing Systems, with no Relational (i) Integrity (ii) Power (iii) Speed, and 5% or less are true RDBs, with (i)(ii)(iii).

Why is that so ? What is the cause ?

Why is it that the car industry and the manufacturing industry have no such problems ... but we do ... for forty five years ?

Cheers
Derek Received on Sun Feb 01 2015 - 07:56:55 CET