Re: Unknown SQL

>> >- Relational databases need to split single objects up on multiple
 tables.
>>
>> No, they do not. If you made any effort to educate yourself, at all, you
>> would know better. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Date's and
>> Darwen's _Third Manifesto..._ or Fabian Pascal's most recent
 contribution.
 I
>> don't remember the exact title off the top of my head.
>
>Of course you need to take objects apart!

No, I don't. I suggest, once again, you educate yourself. Either of the references I gave previously will do. There is a huge difference between unknowingly acting in ignorance and knowingly acting in ignorance.

>Would you store a 10-class-deep inheritance hierarchy to 1 table?

If I felt the need, sure!

>With a non-splitting-approach there could only be tables for every
 top-level
>class.

Huh? Again, I suggest you educate yourself. Your statement is ridiculous.

>> >Passing keys back and forth to link the pieces together simply costs
>> >performance.
>>
>> This is not necessary, which makes your point moot.
>
>What is your personal favorite method to generate foreign keys in a
>multi-user environment?

I don't generate foreign keys; the DBMS enforces them. The number of users is irrelevant.

>> >- Object databases can analyze objects directly, without the need to
 convert
>> >them to a SQL string representation. That is much faster.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>Again:
>I can prove it empirically.

Again, you cannot prove this empirically without an infinite amount of effort.

>What are we dealing with in IT?

Information and technology.

>Theoretical or practical advantages?

Theoretical advantages are practical advantages.

>> >- Many usecases for commercially used relational databases involve
>> >incredible driver overhead. Converting data over JDBC -> ODBC for
 instance,
>> >drastically slows down performance.
>>
>> Criticisms of JDBC and ODBC are hardly valid criticisms of relational
>> databases. They do not equate.
>
>JDBC and ODBC are widely used to eliminate implementation differences
>between relational vendors. In practice today on hundred-thousands of
>computers on this planet their protocol overhead slows down work and costs
>efficiency.

Again, database vendors' failure to adhere to relational principles hardly makes a valid criticism of those principles.

>What database interface do you preferrably use, if you program with Java?

I am a programmer. I'll use whatever interface is practical and available.

Regards,
Bob Received on Sun Jul 22 2001 - 01:28:53 CEST