Re: The joy of SQL

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.