BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] SQL discussion
- Subject: [Discuss] SQL discussion
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:49:15 -0500
- In-reply-to: <0d92d1e432b8c5f1114ff2fe7f1b22b5.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
- References: <3b5e4d10464b98632f1d45a222c26f73.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com> <54B54C35.4060304@gmail.com> <0d92d1e432b8c5f1114ff2fe7f1b22b5.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
On 1/13/2015 1:39 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote: > Semantic arguments over canonically understood terms is not a good start. > When one says "a SQL database," everyone knows what is being discussed. The only time that I've ever seen "a SQL database" having a "canonically understood" meaning is in regards to specific instances of Microsoft SQL Server databases. Then again, the fact that we're even having this argument suggests that when one says "a SQL database," /not/ everyone knows what is being discussed. >> SQL is a database interface language. It was designed specifically for >> use with relational tables. > > That is part of it, true, but not all of it. No, that's the entirety of it: SQL was developed specifically for use with relational data. Period. You can argue that it's not but if you're going to do that then I suggest taking it up with the guys at IBM who designed it. >> On the other foot, SQL is absolutely terrible for queries against >> unstructured and multi-dimensional data. > > LOL, *everything* else is just as bad. The proliferation of post-relational databases in high-profile applications suggests that this is merely your opinion. By "high-profile" I mean the likes of Ameritrade and Kaiser Permanente. I list these two because I had a very, very, very indirect hand in their deployments. >> It's difficult to implement >> queries against these kinds of data with SQL. > > Why? Because SQL is built on two dimensional algebra. Two dimensional math cannot easily encompass three or more dimensions. >> Such queries are much more >> complex in SQL than their native equivalents and they are much slower as >> a direct consequence of this complexity. > > Why? With SQL you perform multiple queries and figure out how to combine the results. With a native multi-dimensional query you perform one query and receive one result. > Rhetorical nonsense. Assertions without explanations. No, it's just you being hide-bound in re. SQL and relational databases. Hm. I seem to recall something... wasn't it one of your posts that I replied with a quip to the effect that when all you have is a RDBMS then every problem looks like a table? -- Rich P.
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- From: gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- References:
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] SQL discussion
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] SQL discussion
- Next by Date: [Discuss] SQL discussion
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] SQL discussion
- Next by thread: [Discuss] SQL discussion
- Index(es):