"Lauri Pietarinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > > >Well, as far as we MV'ers are concerned, performance IS a problem with > >the relational approach. The attitude (as far as I can tell) with > >relational is to hide the actual DB implementation from the programmers. > >So it is a design "flaw" that it is extremely easy for a programmer to > >do something stupid. And you need a DBA to try and protect the database > >from the programmers! > > > >As soon as a requirement for a database specifies extraction of the > >maximum power from the box, it OUGHT to rule out all the current > >relational databases. MV flattens it for it for performance. As an MV > >programmer, I *KNOW* that I can find any thing I'm looking for (or find > >out it doesn't exist) with just ONE disk seek. A relational programmer > >has to ask the db "does this exist" and hope the db is optimised to be > >able to return the result quickly. To quote the Pick FAQ "SQL optimises > >the easy task of finding stuff in memory. Pick optimises the hard task > >of getting it into memory in the first place". > > > So in your opinion, is the problem > > 1) SQL is so hard that the average programmer will not know how to use it > efficiently > or > 2) Relational (or SQL-) DBMS'es are just too slow
No, I think Anthony is just saying that he doesn't "believe" in science/the scientific method. Or maybe he believes that engineering is not based on scientific knowledge! > >"Think different". Think Engineering, not Maths. And for $DEITY's sake > >stop going on about science. Unless you can use set theory to predict > >the future, relational has nothing to do with science ... Regards Paul Vernon Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])