Outstanding - thanks for the reference on Pickwiki. -----Original Message----- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Anthony W. Youngman Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:22 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Worst Case/Best Case
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 This e-mail and related attachments and any response may be subject to public disclosure under state law. _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
