March 17, 2011 at 12:57 pm
OCTom (3/17/2011)
Eventhough it's made-up, "object-mapped data files" sounds really cool. 😎
Actually, in the context of a RDBMS, it sounds appallingly uncool - back to the bad old days of the network or heriarchical database models (which would have been a sensible approach to handling XML in an RDBMS, but someone had to reinvent the wheel, didn't they, and forgot it should have no sharp corners) or, even worse, forward to the long promised but never yet delivered working nontrivial OODBMS.
Tom
March 18, 2011 at 6:46 am
I think its interesting to note that the percentage for each answer is currently pretty close, certainly there is no clear leader of the 4. That says to me that many people, myself included, do not come from a Visual Studio background and do not have a great deal of knowledge of how data and databases are approached in that setting. I have appreciated these questions as they have shown me not only how little I know but how much exists in what I have previously perceived to be an environment for those programming in C# or Vb.net rather than in SQL
Thanks for the question
March 18, 2011 at 6:51 am
Tom.Thomson (3/17/2011)
OCTom (3/17/2011)
Eventhough it's made-up, "object-mapped data files" sounds really cool. 😎Actually, in the context of a RDBMS, it sounds appallingly uncool - back to the bad old days of the network or heriarchical database models (which would have been a sensible approach to handling XML in an RDBMS, but someone had to reinvent the wheel, didn't they, and forgot it should have no sharp corners) or, even worse, forward to the long promised but never yet delivered working nontrivial OODBMS.
Fair point, although "object" doesn't necessarily imply "object oriented". Most stuff in a SQL Server DB can be considered an object because its in [sys].[objects].
Still, we're debating a term which I only made up so that we had 4 multiple choise answers instead of 3 so this is possibly the most pointless debate I have ever contributed to 🙂
Jamie Thomson
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jamie_thomson
March 18, 2011 at 6:57 am
SanDroid (3/17/2011)
kaspencer (3/17/2011)
However, in the Microsoft library, it states "You can use Microsoft Visual Studio Team Edition for Database Professionals to generate meaningful data for testing. "Which is correct? Meaningless or Meaningfull?
They both are really. The data would be meaningfull from a testing perspective of dertermining if the database can be populated with the data and data-types that it will be filled with. Also for testing this generated or "FALSE" data can test an application UI to ensure that it dsplays information properly.
However testing a Zip Code and Last Name feild in a database with the values 54321 and QWRTGHOPI is not very meaningfull. You can find documentation that is not sales oriented that will also back this up.
Yeah, correct. Thanks SanDroid. When I said "meaningless" I meant that its not real-world data and actually is often nonsensical. When Microsoft say "meaingful" they mean data that means something in respect of the tests. Probably truer to say that both are correct - just depends on the context (as is often the case).
Jamie Thomson
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jamie_thomson
March 18, 2011 at 10:10 am
Thanks for the question, it is good to get an idea of what Visual Studio is capable of.
March 18, 2011 at 10:59 am
Tom.Thomson (3/17/2011)
Actually, in the context of a RDBMS, it sounds appallingly uncool - back to the bad old days of the network or heriarchical database models (which would have been a sensible approach to handling XML in an RDBMS, but someone had to reinvent the wheel, didn't they, and forgot it should have no sharp corners) or, even worse, forward to the long promised but never yet delivered working nontrivial OODBMS.
Tom,
I ask this question to anyone that talks about OODBMS vs RDBMS.
Define the differance in schema of a database on a OODBMS from that of a RDBMS database that is fully ACID and Normalized.
BTW: Please re-read the lastest information on Database Normalization and the 5th Normal Form before answering.
:SMOOTH:
March 18, 2011 at 11:01 am
SanDroid (3/18/2011)
Tom.Thomson (3/17/2011)
Actually, in the context of a RDBMS, it sounds appallingly uncool - back to the bad old days of the network or heriarchical database models (which would have been a sensible approach to handling XML in an RDBMS, but someone had to reinvent the wheel, didn't they, and forgot it should have no sharp corners) or, even worse, forward to the long promised but never yet delivered working nontrivial OODBMS.Tom,
I ask this question to anyone that talks about OODBMS vs RDBMS.
Define the differance in schema of a database on a OODBMS from that of a RDBMS database that is fully ACID and Normalized.
BTW: Please re-read the lastest information on Database Normalization and the 5th Normal Form before answering.
:SMOOTH:
Let's not fight. this is neither the time nor the place 🙂
Jamie Thomson
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jamie_thomson
March 18, 2011 at 11:10 am
Jamie Thomson (3/18/2011)
SanDroid (3/18/2011)
Tom.Thomson (3/17/2011)
Actually, in the context of a RDBMS, it sounds appallingly uncool - back to the bad old days of the network or heriarchical database models (which would have been a sensible approach to handling XML in an RDBMS, but someone had to reinvent the wheel, didn't they, and forgot it should have no sharp corners) or, even worse, forward to the long promised but never yet delivered working nontrivial OODBMS.Tom,
I ask this question to anyone that talks about OODBMS vs RDBMS.
Define the differance in schema of a database on a OODBMS from that of a RDBMS database that is fully ACID and Normalized.
BTW: Please re-read the lastest information on Database Normalization and the 5th Normal Form before answering.
:SMOOTH:
Let's not fight. this is neither the time nor the place 🙂
Who is fighting? <looking around> I honestly would like an answer to my question and I respect Tom's opinion.
I have heard a lot of talk about OODBMS, but only that.
I have never heard an anwer to that question that mentioned something we can not do with MS SQL Server.
Perhaps the real answer is "A OODBMS system would not allow the creation of DB schema that is un-normalized and non ACID Compliant."
March 18, 2011 at 5:39 pm
SanDroid (3/18/2011)
Jamie Thomson (3/18/2011)
SanDroid (3/18/2011)
Tom.Thomson (3/17/2011)
Actually, in the context of a RDBMS, it sounds appallingly uncool - back to the bad old days of the network or heriarchical database models (which would have been a sensible approach to handling XML in an RDBMS, but someone had to reinvent the wheel, didn't they, and forgot it should have no sharp corners) or, even worse, forward to the long promised but never yet delivered working nontrivial OODBMS.Tom,
I ask this question to anyone that talks about OODBMS vs RDBMS.
Define the differance in schema of a database on a OODBMS from that of a RDBMS database that is fully ACID and Normalized.
BTW: Please re-read the lastest information on Database Normalization and the 5th Normal Form before answering.
:SMOOTH:
Let's not fight. this is neither the time nor the place 🙂
Who is fighting? <looking around> I honestly would like an answer to my question and I respect Tom's opinion.
I have heard a lot of talk about OODBMS, but only that.
I have never heard an anwer to that question that mentioned something we can not do with MS SQL Server.
Perhaps the real answer is "A OODBMS system would not allow the creation of DB schema that is un-normalized and non ACID Compliant."
I didn't for a mement think you intended to start a fight. I suspect Jamie thought that because he has seen fights between "relational" people and "oo people" before. But his point that this is neither the time nor the place applies equally to the debate about how OODBMS differs from RDBMS, or to the debate about what an OODBMS should or shouldn't be, as to a fight - this thread is for discussing the question and answer about VS that Jamie supplied, not for drifting off into distant theoretical realms. If we want to have tthe OODBMS discussion (and it might be a useful one to have) we should start a thread specifically (if one doesn't already exist - it may do) for it rather than hijacking Jamie's thread for it. I'll give you a short answer here, because it's easy: since there is no broad agreement amongst OO people interested in databases (nor indeed amongst database people interested in OO) as to what an OODBMS should be (or would be, or could be, or is - people don't even agree on which of these verb forms is appropriate here) the only sensible answer to your question is "I don't know" (but I would also say that it's pretty unclear how or even whether normalisation would apply to an OODBMS). The discussion can be continued elsewhere, if you wish.
Tom
Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply