Re: Hierarchical Model and its Relevance in the Relational Model
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:38:26 -0800 (PST)
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:52:59 -0800 (PST) Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > (Not avoiding this point, tomorrow, please.)
> > Accepted. And both of us know that the abstract is not the paper. Details tomorrow.
I am trying to provide the two responses that I owe you, to complete the response to your post. But I am running into difficulty re the amount of detail required, and I need a quick clarification, please.
> It would seem that once you introduce the average programmer to
> a hierarchical filesystem, you can never wean him of the notion that
> that's the "natural" structure for data.
Since this thread is about the RM, I assume you mean, he then implements that thing that he considers the "natural" structure for data, in a RDBMS. (Otherwise the point does not apply.)
Could you please give an example of what one of those guys did, that you consider to be incorrect, and also your version of what that should be, if you corrected it, to what you think the "natural" structure is. Ie. they use it on everything, and you use it sparingly.
Derek Received on Sun Feb 01 2015 - 03:38:26 CET