From: crash@hal.com (Chris Craddock)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Relational Systems set back DP by at least 10 yrs.
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:43:55 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems

In article <1992Apr11.235705.17791@anasaz>, briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr10.004118.15114@hal.com> crash@hal.com (Chris Craddock) writes:
|> >However, there are some fundamental reasons for their failure.

I should begin to correct any impression that I am opposed to RDBMS per se.
There is no question that they provide better formalism and so on. It is 
also true that they don't necessarily serve their customers needs - as Brian
points out below, even if indirectly.
 
|> Just wanting to add my $.02 to this, a very key point was missed by the
|> original poster and Mr. Craddock.  That is the biggest strength of an RDBMS
|> over a flat-file system is not in insertion speed, but rather the building
|> of complex data relations between tables of records.  The ability to ask
|> "What if" queries is the inherent strength of an RDBMS, not flat I/O
|> ability in a real-time data acquistion application.

"What if" queries are certainly a strength, but the overwhelming majority of
RDBMS in the commercial world are being used to replace CODASYL or hierarchical
databases in OLTP applications. Once again, the dominant characteristic of
these applications is rapid access to a very small, well defined subset of 
the data...

Therefore, random access and insertion speed are critical determinants of
performance. End user perception of the "success" of an application is 
heavily corelated with performance, hence the emphasis on performance 
engineering from people like Dr Connie Smith, Dr Jeff Buzen, H. Pat Artis
and others. 

|> [application design stuff deleted]
|> 
|> What I'm trying to say, is that no one solution is perfect for all
|> problems.  Always the right solution to the problem, instead of trying to
|> apply one solution (RDBMS) to all problems (i.e. Bill of Materials,
|> possible, but such a pain!).

Absolutely right! But there's the problem. You are an experienced developer
and seem able to grasp the details of the application. The overwhelming
majority of customers I've dealt with struggle with even the simplest RDBMS
application design. Now when those applications all run into tens of millions
of rows, performance becomes a binary question. Its either executable or not.

The customers I'm talking about are big banks, insurance companies, airlines,
etc. not normally thought of as amateurs in the OLTP world (names available
on request :O)

|> >THIRD: relational solutions (just like OO* and CASE before it) were
|> >heavily over-sold and over-hyped by unscrupulous vendors.
|> 
|> When it's done right, it does work.  The trouble is, people take a
|> piecemeal approach instead of systemic. 

Precisely my point. So far, we're not really disagreeing.

|> [case stuff deleted]
|> >
|> >Is this really "progress" ?  I sorta doubt it.
|> 
|> Hey, I've never had to write a line of COBOL or assembly in my life.  I
|> think we're making progress.

Unfortunately, I've had to read and write thousands of lines of both. The 
experience teaches you respect for what can be achieved with simple tools.
 
|> One final note, this whole argument reminds me of the race between a steam
|> powered train and horse.  The train lost and everyone laughed at its
|> inventor.  But the work continued and eventually the horse was supplanted
|> by the steam-engine, and then it too by the internal combustion engine.  I
|> do think this is progress.
|> -- 
|> Brian Douglass

Well, here's where we diverge. If it was simply a matter of adding
more tools to our suite, I'd be in strong agreement. Give me a range
of tools and I'll  always pick the right one for the job.

What we're talking about though is *replacing* everything we had with
newer and shinier versions with more bells and whistles. This is just
dumb. People still ride horses, still play with steam engines (they're
more efficient than internal combustion engines BTW), and most trains
are now either fully electric, or diesel electric.

If RDBMS' came along and were offered as a useful alternative choice,
we'd all have been better off. Instead, we've had this absurd religion
which pounds MIS managers with the story that if they're not relational,
they are living in the stone age. Its a victory of marketing psychology
over appropriate use of technology. 

Chris
-- 
"That's the problem with nature, something's always stinging you
 or oozing mucous all over you. Let's go and watch TV"  - Calvin

crash@hal.com   		HaL Computer Systems Inc.
(408) 379-7000 x1163		1315 Dell Ave. Campbell CA 95008