Re: Some Hype on "new" databases - where's the theory in this group?

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 02:23:32 GMT
Message-ID: <EKefe.1271214$8l.535212_at_pd7tw1no>

David Cressey wrote:
> Or in "Being There", when Chance says, "I like to watch."
>
>
> "Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote in message
> news:9dekk2-ne2.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...
>

>>Mark D Powell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The authors used a lot of words to say very little of any value.  In
>>>fact most of the article didn't seem to really say anything.
>>>
>>>IMHO -- Mark D Powell --
>>
>>I wouldn't fix the content at zero, though close to it.  Articles like

>
> this
>

>>can be useful for determining what types of buzzwords you are going to
>>encounter.  I'm reminded of "Hard Days' Night" when the fashion experts
>>wondered, "Could he be an early clue to the new direction?"
>>
>>--
>>Kenneth Downs
>>Secure Data Software, Inc.
>>(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)

>
>
>

i'd say he was mostly talking about physical stuff. nothing wrong with that except that i wish he would use the term 'physical database' or somesuch to distinguish that he's not talking about database 'in toto'.   for sure, exploitation of new ways to use today's capacitous main memory is an important pursuit.

Gray has a well-deserved reputation in physical database matters. it took many years before any products implemented some of the ideas he wrote about in the 1980's, such as predicate locks, which have surprising uses in practice. although i don't follow most of what goes on, i'd guess some uses still haven't become widely known.

however, it may be telling that when he recounts history, something like Prolog isn't mentioned. i'm not touting it, it just comes to mind as i recall that it was an attempt at logical unification, which i think is an admirable goal. i have seen lots of attacks against it (not here, i should add) and most of them were on physical grounds, which seems beside the point to me.

to me, Gray is talking about a subject that may be valuable to some commercial interests but which is not necessarily involved with real progress in the field - the kind that offers a theory and then tries to test it and gives lasting value to all of us.

a few years ago, i asked a couple of old friends to interpret pages 54 to 56 of Darwen and Date's TTM. all three of us had differing results for simple examples. (the other two guys have enough degrees to counter my lack of one.) i've never seen any discussion of such basics in this 'theory' group. how come? isn't this the kind of thing that should be discussed here?

pc Received on Sun May 08 2005 - 04:23:32 CEST