In message
<d1be4de74846bd499929b632eaec736a0b7c9...@nt102.clark.root.local>,
"Oaks, Harold" <harold.o...@clark.wa.gov> writes
Dawn:
That wasn't Dawn, it was me, Wol.
Where might we find the proof you speak of? Is there a nice, tidy paper
somewhere? The Mathematician in me is quite interested. I would be
overjoyed to show this to management.
Let's start with sets. To a relational database, EVERYTHING is a set. So
if your data happens to be a list, or a bag, you can't STORE it in a
RDBMS, you have to MODEL it instead.
So, instantly, you are mixing data and metadata. BAD MOVE. Now your
applications need to know what stuff IN the database is data, and what
is metadata.
Relational theory says "data is two-dimensional". We know it isn't :-)
An RDBMS stores data in two-dimensional structures. An MV database
stores data in n-dimensional structures. In Maths, the general always
trumps the specific - n-dimensional trumps 2-dimensional. But being
n-dimensional, we can pretend to be 2-dimensional. Relational can't
pretend to be n-dimensional.
Look on Pickwiki - http://www.pickwiki.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MVDefinition
- that was me - it was an attempt to demolish C&D's twelve rules. Have a
look and see what you think.
I'm quite happy to carry on discussing this - either here, on community,
or private email. And I suspect Dawn would like to discuss this to try
and get a paper together.
The basic problem is that relational *theory* is both *sound*, and
*good*. So people assume that RDBMSs are sound and good too. But if you
read my article on Pickwiki, it's obvious nothing could be further from
the truth. Good maths does not necessarily make good engineering - and
RDBMSs are an example of crap engineering.
Thanks-
Harold Oaks
Clark County,WA
Cheers,
Wol
-----Original Message-----
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Anthony W.
Youngman
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:19 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] Worst Case/Best Case
In message <002a01ca37d4$03bc58b0$0b350a...@com>, Symeon Breen
<syme...@gmail.com> writes
Just to pick up on one point - I am a .net developer but we use u2 as
the data store in a growing business with many new customers every
year. It is more a problem with peoples mindset than a problem with u2
technology itself, lets home rocket can tackle this head on.
As I KEEP banging on, it's EASY to prove that U2 (and MV in general) is
a far better database engine than an RDBMS, we just need to show that to
management.
"Efficiency" and "relational" are NOT compatible, and the maths to prove
it is simple.
Einstein's corollary to Occam - "make it as simple as possible, but no
simpler" - relational is OVER simplified.
Cheers,
Wol
--
--
Anthony W. Youngman <pi...@thewolery.demon.co.uk>
'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the
thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man
lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998
Visit the MaVerick web-site - <http://www.maverick-dbms.org> Open Source Pick
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
