paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> l.jarvensivu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>> Hehe, and google autosuggested this place for me. I suppose google
>>> feels I've got alot in common with **** spam,
>>
>>
>> That's only a recent thing, but I am sad to say it seems to have dried
>> up the on-topic conversations.
>
>
>
> Alright, here's an old topic, the trans-relational model. (At one time,
> I was intrigued by it, since I don't live in the USA and therefore could
> ignore US patents if I wanted to try to make money off it.) One claim
> for it was that certain run-time sorts or index builds could be
> eliminated, although I seem to remember one of the big names cautioning
> that there might always be a 'preferred order' (sorry if I've mis-quoted
> and I don't mean to be sly, the people who publicized it remain deep
> thinkers in my book). After some study, undoubtedly inferior in parts,
> I concluded that one could accomplish the same 'physical' effect if
> every 'column' were indexed.
>
>
> However, in certain cases, it seemed to me that even if Codd was
> approving of it (or so I remember reading), it denied his goal of
> 'symmetric exploitation', reason being that it depended on projections
> of columns that were 'adjacent' (my term) in the 'zig-zag' organization
> of physical columns, eg., if the zigzag connected column a to b and b to
> c but the query involved only columns a and c, then the result wouldn't
> have what I think of as a 'pleasing' order, unless a sort were invoked.
>
>
> I realize that a pleasing order is counter to relational dogma but when
> it comes to the mundane domains such as dollars and dates that I've been
> indoctrinated in all my life, I find ordering of those familiar domains
> to be just as powerful, helpful and convenient as pretty much any logic
> I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, Codd's symmetric exploitation could
> be achieved if every permutation of 'columns' were encoded in the
> trans-relational intermediate layer.
>
>
> I don't remember this aspect of that model ever being discussed here but
> I contend it is just as reasonable as Codd's original intent, which was
> in part to make access to data storage more intuitive.
>
>
> Of course, I'd agree if Bob B said he was finding plonk maintenance
> onerous these days, but I have my own kind of plonk to fall back on. If
> it wasn't already my practice, I'd have said the current state of cdt
> was driving me to drink.
Quite the contrary. There is no point in plonking a very tem****ary spam
account, and the spam seems to have driven off even the would-be trolls
and cranks.
|
