Re: Sensible and NonsenSQL Aspects of the NoSQL Hoopla

On 9/2/2013 8:13 AM, paul c wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 1:07 AM, karl.scheurer_at_o2online.de wrote:
>> Codd shifted the complexity from one area to another. When dealing with
>> n entities is replaced with n*x relations is a considerable increase in
>> complexity. One reference told me that a SAP R3 system contains more than
>> 100000 tables (one hundred thousand!). What about complexity?
>
> No. Codd shifted what was common in programs (programs of the 1960's,
> not the 1970's by the way) to the dbms. Obviously no one person nor any
> manageable group of people can decide how redundant SAP is, so SAP must
> be regarded as a failure as far as Codd's idea is concerned. If your
> statistic is accurage, SAP must be regarded as just as much a failure as
> the systems it seeks to replace.

SAP can hardly be held up as a relational example. Those idiots made the   conscious choice to avoid any declarative integrity and codify any integrity in ABAP applications. The product was originally constructed to do things entirely 1 record at a time, and it was only after it became a mature product before they added anything even remotely set-at-a-time.

On the bright side, the 4-letter table names put an upper bound on the number of tables. Received on Tue Sep 03 2013 - 00:34:26 CEST