Jim Lawrence
accessd at shaw.ca
Sat Oct 1 00:09:34 CDT 2005
Wow, the old one two tag-team assault... I was hoping they would provide statistics and demonstrations of inadequacies, how it is a poor performer, how difficult the product is to manage or how it took three times as long to resolve a data request. I read none of that just a rant on the evils of Caché. I would expect better from a couple of fellows who are considered the head Gurus of the database world. (What is the old saying; Spiritual people enlighten but Religious people are just scary.) Caché might not be a product worth considering but I guess I will have to judge on it merits. Have you ever looked at a database product named ANTS. Here is one article on the product: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/27/ants_database/ and a fully operational evaluation copy of the database can be acquired from: http://www.ants.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&Itemid=59&id=442 My understanding is that like Access it consumes all of the existing memory, the more the merrier. The difference Access just bleeds into all the memory. :-) -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of MartyConnelly Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:08 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL With Cache you have to read the swipes Date and Pascal take at it Against http://www.dbazine.com/ofinterest/oi-articles/pascal5 But with Fabian Pascal, you start believing in Mystic Eisegesis and start looking for notes nailed to church doors. http://www.dbdebunk.com/index.html For http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5746 Jim Lawrence wrote: >Shamil: > >That description is a very good one. I have not seen a translation as good >as that one and I think none of the rules can be refuted. The issues arrive >when they are described in context with database normalization. I rarely >process below Form 3. > >A collogue has been saying for years that the relational database as we know >it is designed wrong. He claims that a real relational database or >post-relational database is OOP. To that end he says he can demonstrate that >a Caché database running on a slower computer can run the same application >as an existing MS SQL DB faster and with better access to the data. It is >suppose to scale to millions of records was no apparent loss in performance. >(I am skeptical and unfortunately missed last night's demonstration but will >reserve my judgment until further observation.) > >I anticipate a carefully timed demonstration... There is a free single user >download from http://www.intersystems.com/cache/downloads/ (Windows/Linux) > >Jim > >-----Original Message----- >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Shamil >Salakhetdinov >Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:07 AM >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > >Jim, > >But I think MS SQL 2000 and MS SQL 2005 perfectly fit all the twelve >Dr.E.F. Codd rules. > >http://www.frick-cpa.com/ss7/Theory_RelationalDB.asp > >Maybe there are some small exceptions for the rules: > >#4. Database is Self-Describing >#12. Data Integrity Cannot be Subverted > >but they are not significant I think. > >Shamil > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jim Lawrence" <accessd at shaw.ca> >To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" ><accessd at databaseadvisors.com> >Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:40 PM >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > > >Hi Alan: > >If all ten law/rules/guidelines were ever fully implemented on a database >the application it would grind to a halt. It has been attempted, to various >degrees, in data designs within Government Ministries for years and in ever >cases it has failed. The basic guidelines of relational databases as I see >them are as follows: >1. The data must be easy to retrieve...therefore the data should be grouped. > >2. The database must be kept as small as reasonable...therefore as little >duplication as possible. >3. A high level of performance must be maintained. > >With those three guidelines much of Codd's/Date's rules can be implemented >but the whole concept starts to fall apart when enforcing the rules start to >impact performance. > >My two cents worth >Jim > >-----Original Message----- >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Lawhon, Alan C >Contractor/Morgan Research >Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:44 AM >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > >Arthur, Charlotte: > >Several years ago I recall buying (and trying to comprehend) relational >database guru Chris Date's "classic" book (it's more like a tome ...) >"An Introduction to Database Systems". (Chris Date's main claim to >fame is as a protégé of the late Dr. E.F. "Ted" Codd - the "father" of >the relational database model.) Date worked with Dr. Codd in the early >1970's at IBM. He is now a full time consultant and writer - mostly of >articles dealing with various topics related to database design. > >Chris Date is a relational "purist" (some might say a zealot) in arguing >that a database system (or a vendor implementation of a database system) >cannot be considered truly "relational" if it violates any of Codd's "Ten >Rules" of relational database design. (Without "naming names," Chris Date >excoriates various vendor implementations of the relational model in his >book. He accuses these vendors of committing various "unforgivable sins" >against the relational model. Chris Date implies (or in some cases flat >out states) that these "sins" [of implementation] will lead to nothing >but trouble when commercial systems are designed and built using these >"flawed" implementations. (I'm doing a lot of paraphrasing of Chris Date's >words and writing here, but I think I have the "general drift" of Date's >criticisms just about right.) > >I think part of the "problem" (from the vendors perspective) may be that >creating a [truly] "relational" database system that passes muster with >Chris Date is probably very difficult - not to mention very costly. (After >investing literally BILLIONS of dollars in research and development, a >vendor may come up with an implementation that meets the requirements of >six or seven of the ten rules - and ignores (or "violates") the other three >rules. Chris Date focuses in on the three (or four) rules that have been >violated - and declares the whole implementation "fatally flawed". > >I would have to go back and re-read "An Introduction to Database Systems," >but I have a feeling that the introduction of "Multi-choice combos" is >the kind of thing that will drive Chris Date up the wall. > >Alan C. Lawhon > > >-----Original Message----- >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller >Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:40 AM >To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > >You can add MySQL to your list of offending databases. MySQL offends in two >ways, actually, but I will leave that as an exercise for the interested >reader. > >-----Original Message----- >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte Foust >Sent: September 29, 2005 11:05 AM >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > >I haven't *seen* it. The stated concept gives me shivers because of >"databases" like Approach and FileMaker that have allowed multiple >choices stored in a single field. > >Charlotte > >-----Original Message----- >From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:artful at rogers.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:05 PM >To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > > >Multi-choice combos <> relational constraints! >Case in point: I want to add N children to a parent, whose DetailType is >selected from a multi-choice combo.... i.e. add a Hotel, a CarRental, a >ConcertTicket, an AirportShuttle. The UI lets me do this as quickly as >possible, and background code takes care of the Parent-Child >relationships. I see no problem here. What are you seeing? > > >-----Original Message----- >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte >Foust >Sent: September 28, 2005 11:22 AM >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > > > >>>Multi-choice combo box (M-M joins) >>> >>> > >That's the one I find scary. Does that mean they're abandoning >relational design? > >Charlotte > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gustav Brock [mailto:Gustav at cactus.dk] >Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:32 AM >To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com >Subject: Re: [AccessD] The future of Access, .NET and SQL > > >Hi all > >OK, found something in the slides at the links from Jim. >Does anyone know if "Append only" is fixed or optional? > ><snip> > >ACE - Access Data Engine > >- Engine based on Jet code-base and installed with Office, 100% >backwards compatible with Jet >- Connects to external data sources >- Foundation for richer support of complex data >- Multi-choice combo box (M-M joins) >- Attachments >- Append only >- Read and write Excel "12" file formats >- SharePoint ISAM enhancements >- OM changes to DAO and ACE OLEDB provider (ADO) > ></snip> > >I guess OM here means Object Model. >Further: > ><snip> > >New ACCDB file format > >- Can be emailed and stored in SharePoint document libraries >- Default for all new database >- Supports complex data features >- Multiple value lookups >- Attachments >- Append only >- SharePoint list offline >- Office file encryption not Jet encoding > ></snip> > >Also this summary: > ><snip> > >- Microsoft is committed to Access as a developer platform >- SharePoint Services integration allows developers to build new types >of collaborative applications >- Developers can build and deploy tracking templates > ></snip> > >Note that an Outlook code example in the presentation uses DAO, so this >seems not to be "dead" at all. > >/gustav > > > >>>>Gustav at cactus.dk 27-09-2005 21:03 >>> >>>> >>>> >Hi Susan and Martin > >Thanks! >Just wondering what this new engine should be about ... > > > > -- Marty Connelly Victoria, B.C. Canada -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com