Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!ulysses!allegra!princeton!udel!gatech!purdue!umd5!ames!ptsfa!well!mjr
From: mjr@well.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Pro-Pre-Relational
Keywords: network,hierarchical,relational,comparison
Message-ID: <5012@well.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jan 88 05:03:47 GMT
References: <2557@sfsup.UUCP> <68@coot.AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM> <549@mtxinu.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjr@well.UUCP (Matthew Rapaport)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 15
Posted: Sat Jan 16 00:03:47 1988

>In article <68@coot.AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM> chris@AUSTIN.LOCKHEED.COM (Chris Wood) writes:
>>On average, it should take about 10 times
>>as long to examine 40000 records as 4000 records.  

Not true, because the second relation (with the monthly data that would
otherwise go into the repeating fields) will have very short records,
so will be quickly searched (at least much better than 10 times worse
than 4000 much longer records)...

All large scale relational databases I know of (bearing in mind that
the best only implement 50% of the model) allow for the kind of
physical optimization you refer to...  Perhaps I shouldn't say all,
but I know this is true of Cincom's Supra and DB2, aparantly for
Sybase as well...
mjr@well