Path: news.f.de.plusline.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!postnews.google.com!i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Marshall" <marshall.spight@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: Mapping arbitrary number of attributes to DB
Date: 26 Oct 2006 10:29:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <1161883776.554594.90820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <453967a2$0$19667$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <1161465441.723954.203100@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <453d126a$0$19727$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <1161636885.535467.304030@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <453d522f$0$19658$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <DTm%g.7058$ke4.4635@trndny02>
   <453e54fc$0$19645$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
   <8zx%g.17928$OE1.3219@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
   <Pine.SOL.4.62.0610251416270.23598@kruuna.helsinki.fi>
   <H7SdnY5BBY7OwaLYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net>
   <Pine.SOL.4.62.0610251851110.23598@kruuna.helsinki.fi>
   <WsQ%g.10387$cz.160925@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
   <Pine.SOL.4.62.0610261119220.27233@kruuna.helsinki.fi>
   <RE30h.10661$cz.165508@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.24.89.20
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1161883782 16625 127.0.0.1 (26 Oct 2006 17:29:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:29:42 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <RE30h.10661$cz.165508@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=172.24.89.20;
   posting-account=s2xCFw0AAAD2mIwYYHAqjdsecwG0axmW
Xref: news.f.de.plusline.net comp.databases.theory:39705

On Oct 26, 7:31 am, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I believe the problem is the cost of up front modeling.
> As I stated clearly, you were begging the question. You invented an up
> front modelling cost that doesn't necessarily even exist and then
> alerted us to this 'problem'.
> [...]
> You assumed a non-existent large up-front 'modelling cost' to prove a
> large up-front 'modelling cost'.

Wait, are you saying that modelling is free?

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. It
*sounds* as if you are saying that, after gathering requirements,
turning those requirements into a relational data model (example:
SQL CREATE TABLE statements) costs less than epsilon.

My experience is that such process usually involves lots
of wailing and gnashing of teeth. But perhaps it would
make sense to attribute that effort to extended
requirements gathering?

Not sure I follow. The idea that there is a cost
to figuring out the right schema seems reasonable
to me. It is my experience that the cost is vastly
outweighed by the benefits almost all the time,
but I'd still say there was an associated cost.


Marshall