Talk:Navigational database

message: Would I be incorrect in thinking that a Wiki, and, indeed, the entire WWW is a navigational database?  It has dynamic content, and you can get from point A to point F by following links and navigating through points B, C, D and E.
=== Answer ===
This is actually a very good analogy. The relational approach is using Google to find pages. This is what differentiates the two models. Relational is about matching content to find relationships (e.g. find all orders whose customer ID equals x). Navigational is about jumping directly to specific records (e.g. get these specific orders).
:Which nicely highlights the elephant in the room regarding relational approaches to data management: You can only find what you know how to look for. (Querying for “everything, but …”, as in blacklisting, is not a viable way in practice, unless the universe is really tiny.) Outside of that is just a huge vague “here be dragons”. There’s no requirement of completeness. — 89.0.126.54 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deconstruction 

message: This is actually a very good analogy. The relational approach is using Google to find pages. This is what differentiates the two models. Relational is about matching content to find relationships (e.g. find all orders whose customer ID equals x). Navigational is about jumping directly to specific records (e.g. get these specific orders).
:Which nicely highlights the elephant in the room regarding relational approaches to data management: You can only find what you know how to look for. (Querying for “everything, but …”, as in blacklisting, is not a viable way in practice, unless the universe is really tiny.) Outside of that is just a huge vague “here be dragons”. There’s no requirement of completeness. — 89.0.126.54 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer 

message: Can someone provide an explanation of "the newer Partnership Model" discussed in the Wikipedia text?  There appears to be no Wikipedia page for this text, and Google searches only turn up information related to Riane Eisler.
JohnZabroski  —Preceding comment was added at 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partnership Model? 

message: Transactional database points here, but it is not explained in the article.  I am not sure this is correct, though. -- Beland (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s definitely not correct. The two concepts are completely orthogonal. None requires the other. — 89.0.126.54 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transactional database 

message: Which “critics”? Who are those “some”?
I know the scientific community around this quite well, and the whole part is just plain made-up. No sane person who knows anything about the subject would make such comparisons, given that graphs, on which this concept is based, are the mother of all data structures, and set-theoretical approaches have quite their own share of problems.
Both approaches are not good or bad… they just are.
One would only have to imagine a desktop OS file system based on set-theoretical approaches, to realize how bad of an idea that would be.
Besides: We are long past the blind demonizing of GOTO and its pro-idiocracy mindset of forcing the lowesd common denominator upon everyone, just because some are too damn retarded to be able to handle and use GOTO properly. Those folks can join their equals at the WhatWG, for what it’s worth.
— 89.0.126.54 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded nonsense and weasel words in the “criticism” paragraphs.