Re: Object-Oriented databases Reaerch

#11

alfredo (AT) ncs (DOT) es (Alfredo Novoa) wrote in message news:<e4330f45.0404070524.4d3e13e1 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

Quote:

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

It's really very impressive - can't wait for Date's book on TransRelational,

Me too, I am implementing the basic idea in my spare time, but using a
sligthly different approach also appropriate to be used in disk based
DBMS's.

The little I know about it comes from Intro to DB Systems 8th edition,
but that doesn't cover (as I think someone else said earlier in this
thread) how TransRelational deals with inserts, updates and deletes.
If each I, U or D requires a rejigging of the TR tables underlying
virtually every record in the database table, that sounds like a lot
of work doesn't it? Or does anyone know how it avoids that?

#12

andrewst (AT) onetel (DOT) net.uk (Tony) wrote in message news:<c0e3f26e.0404070858.4558fd1 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

Quote:

Me too, I am implementing the basic idea in my spare time, but using a
sligthly different approach also appropriate to be used in disk based
DBMS's.

The little I know about it comes from Intro to DB Systems 8th edition,
but that doesn't cover (as I think someone else said earlier in this
thread) how TransRelational deals with inserts, updates and deletes.

See the patent text.

Quote:

If each I, U or D requires a rejigging of the TR tables underlying
virtually every record in the database table, that sounds like a lot
of work doesn't it? Or does anyone know how it avoids that?

There are multiple ways to avoid that,but the one I like more is to
use B+Trees or B*Trees.

Regards
Alfredo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: Object-Oriented databases Reaerch

comp.databases.object comp.databases.object

Re: Object-Oriented databases Reaerch - 04-07-2004 , 11:58 AM

Re: Object-Oriented databases Reaerch - 04-08-2004 , 08:04 AM