Sujet : Re: The joy of SQL
De : 186283 (at) *nospam* ud0s4.net (186282@ud0s4.net)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.miscDate : 01. Nov 2024, 07:45:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : wokiesux
Message-ID : <A7udnUgO7Ye45Ln6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
On 11/1/24 12:14 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 23:57:11 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
On 10/31/24 2:20 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 01:35:23 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
On 10/30/24 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 01:55:35 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
SQL and flat-file DBs are kind of the all-gobbling monsters.
>
But MV is still the better, saner, way to organize many kinds of
data.
>
The trouble with unnormalized fields is: how do you do updates? You
have to delete all the values and insert them all again.
>
Updates CAN be annoying.
>
Easy way to remove the annoyance: normalize your field values.
>
But the 'easy' way removes some of your flexibility and reasoning
ability in the process.
No it doesn’t. Prove me wrong.
This can't be "proven" per-se ... it's a matter of
how you "feel" about how data should be represented
to best effect/clarity. Call it 'religion' if you want ...
Hey, which is "better", French or English ? Totally
depends ....
Having used flat and MV, SQL and Non, my 'spiritual bent'
is for MV ... 'PICK-ish'.
In CPU-microseconds, the sheer volume of records produced
using flat systems -vs- the slight xtra effort needed to
update MV records ... pretty much even - though I'm not
entirely sure any benchmarks exist. On mag disks, the
volume thing might be more of a drag, but with e-disks
maybe not as much.
…