Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!pyrnj!esquire!roger
From: roger@esquire.UUCP (Roger Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Relational
Message-ID: <271@esquire.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 88 17:41:41 GMT
References: <2556@sfsup.UUCP> <6482@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: roger@esquire.UUCP (Roger Reid)
Organization: DP&W, New York, NY
Lines: 41

In article <2556@sfsup.UUCP> prj@sfsup.UUCP (P.Jayne) writes:
>As for my other "mistakes" I will reply after a few more flames.  The only
>poster so far who knows of an actual complex database using "relational
>technology" responded by email.  My fellow loud-mouths are all using the net
>and it's great!  Keep them flames coming.

We have what we believe to be one of the most complex relational
database applications around running here on Britton Lee IDMs.
They were done relational because there was no other way to
do it that would work as well as we needed it to (network
would have saddled us with all kinds of decisions far too
early in design - We would have lost all flexibility and hence
most of the usefulness of the system). Hierarchical couldn't
have describe the thing usefully.  The analytical flexibility
we require can (at this time) only be satisfied by the
relational model.  (It also saves us all kinds of disk
space due to as we have almost no redundant data).

It runs on BLI hardware because of its complexity: there is
no way a software based system could run the thing (not enough
CPU cycles in a month). If we were to begin from scratch today
it is quite possible that Sybase running on a backend Unix
machine could take the place of the BLI - tho that has not been proven.

It would cost my firm a significant portion of their billings
to not use the relational model running on hardware simply
because we could not keep track of the intense amount of
detail necessary otherwise.

If people are interested enough I might be able to post a more detailed
article, after checking with my bosses that I am not giving
away proprietary information.  Send mail if you want to encourage me.

As for other models, there are applications for which we use a
locally developed single unique key, hash based set of functions.
The key to this argument is to use the right tool for the right job.
You don't use a $40000 piece of hardware or a $27000 piece
of software to keep track of phone numbers, unless of course you
are the West German phone company (which uses BLI's for directory
assistance - an example of the largest (as opposed to the most complex)
application of relational db).