Re: "Structured" Entity-Relationship Model?

Derek Asirvadem wrote:

>
>> On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:45:11 UTC+10, Roy Hann wrote:
>>
>> I suppose if the DBMS insists of testing the
>> referential integrity contstraints before you assert that you have
>> completed a transaction that has left the database consistent (i.e. you
>> COMMIT) that would be a problem, but that's just a broken DBMS. Indeed
>> most SQL DBMSs seem to want to test constraints after every blessed
>> statement, which is silly.
>
> It might be good if you get out and get some air.
>
> All SQL-Compliant platforms perform statement-level checking, yes.
> Thousands of developers, have succeeded in producing millions of
> databases, which maintain database [C]onsistency, without that being
> an "impediment". That means they do not have Deferred Constraint
> Checking.
>
> Of course, that excludes PostGreNonSQL, MyNonSQL, etc, because they
> are not SQL compliant. The people who use them write code in
isolation, and have numerous weird and wondrous beliefs, firm ones,
> about the real world, but they never get out to experience it.
>
>> SQL applies a series of
>> tiny, local, sequential changes to the database. It is absurd to
>> expect every such incremental change must leave the database
>> consistent.
>
> Ditto. Those millions of databases that never lose [C]onsistency or
> integrity, have that quality. It is possible that the one who has
> never coded in the real world, is the absurd one, and that the real
> world is not. Mental patients usually think they are sane, and that
> the entire world, is insane. They never get out. (Until recently.)

                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Welcome back Derek! It must be good to be out huh? For ten months I've been waiting for your response to my comment above.

I shall cut you much more slack in future. I had no idea you were unwell.

Roy Received on Sat Mar 01 2014 - 14:23:11 CET