|
'[D]ue to their horrendous complexity and
inflexibility, databases and DBMSs relying on the hierarchical model became
obsolete in the 80's, at least technologically. SQL DBMSs based ...
on the simpler relational data model, based on predicate logic and set
mathematics proved superior. ...What is the justification, then, for choosing a
more complex, discredited data model for data exchange, when a majority of
commonly used DBMSs employ a simpler, sounder and, thus, superior data
model?'
Well, speaking of complexity.... I'm largely a document person, and much of my 'data-side'
experience has been bibliographic. And frankly, doing so using an RDBMS has
frequently felt like programming a Turing machine. Sure you can do anything
that way, and you know you can. But it sure is the hard way. This is complex
multidemsional __information__ and splitting it into 2D tables is work, and
then getting it back in a useful way is a major task for the
server.
I
also have to be skeptical of his charges of inflexibilty: The inflexibility of
the relational DBAs has uniformly been a major stumbling block: It seems to
take an order from the CEO countersigned by Codd to make a trival change in
the schema.
So
IMO, if we're insulting people, I suggest that RDBMS are wonderfully designed
for beancounting, and that as soon as you try to start dealing with the real
world instead of making the world deal with your data structures, an RDBMS
doesn't look so wonderful.
Frank
|