Re: foundations of relational theory?
From: cmurthi <xyzcmurthi_at_quest.with.a.w.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:18:28 -0400
Message-ID: <3F93E0A4.6060106_at_quest.with.a.w.net>
>
>
> You can keep you niche. Nobody on
> comp.databases.theory
>
> is interested in your head movement.
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:18:28 -0400
Message-ID: <3F93E0A4.6060106_at_quest.with.a.w.net>
Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:+Z8o96BptCk$Ewj6_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk...
>
>>Complex queries? I agree with you there are all sorts of queries you can >>run. I just don't see how relational can do it faster than Pick - in >>fact quite the reverse. Don't forget, Pick doesn't have an optimiser >>because it doesn't need one. The stats I've seen - given a known key you >>can retrieve ANY record from disk with on average 1.05 head movements. >>Bearing in mind the typical Pick record is equal to several relational >>rows, that's a hell of an advantage if your system is i/o bound.
>
>
> You can keep you niche. Nobody on
> comp.databases.theory
>
> is interested in your head movement.
and that says it all about theorists. ostriches, anyone?
Chandru Murthi Received on Mon Oct 20 2003 - 15:18:28 CEST