Re: Quote from comp.object

On Feb 27, 7:09 am, "frebe" <freb..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> "A typical SQL DBMS requires _drastically_ faster hardware than a
> hierarchical database to provide even roughly equivalent response time
> -- to the point that a SQL DBMS running on current hardware is about
> the
> same speed (or slighthly slower) than a hierarchical database was
> around
> 25 years ago, running on hardware that was current at the time.
>
> As far as normalization goes: back then, normalization was a way of
> life
> -- normalization reduces redundancy, and given the cost of storage at
> the time, redundancy was _expensive_ (even ignoring inflation, one
> month's rent on a 1.8 GB disk drive in 1982 would buy enough disks for
> quite a large RAID today). "
>
> Any comments?

1. It's been pretty well established that comp.object and comp.databases.theory have nothing productive to say to each other.
2. Author makes hilarious performance claims out of thin air but doesn't support them.
3. The purpose of normalization is to eliminate update anomalies, not to reduce storage.

Marshall Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 16:25:01 CET