Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

[yensao]

Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?


Thank you in advance.

Yensao

[Bob Badour]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

Which object-oriented model do you mean?

"yensao" <yensao20032000 @yahoo.com.auwr ote in message
news:91e71e71.0 312040939.2c90b 9e5@posting.goo gle.com...

Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
>
>
Thank you in advance.
>
Yensao

[Anthony W. Youngman]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

In article <91e71e71.03120 40939.2c90b9e5@ posting.google. com>, yensao
<yensao20032000 @yahoo.com.auwr ites

>Hi,
>I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
>Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
>help me with this?
>

So why send it to a group about a post-relational database?

>
>Thank you in advance.
>
>Yensao

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett

[Alfredo Novoa]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

yensao20032000@ yahoo.com.au (yensao) wrote in message news:<91e71e71. 0312040939.2c90 b9e5@posting.go ogle.com>...

I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?

There is not a thing called The Object-Oriented Model.


Regards
Alfredo

[Mark C. Stock]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

for oracle's take on it, you may want to review the their 'Application
Developer's Guide - Object-Relational Features' manual

-- mcs

"yensao" <yensao20032000 @yahoo.com.auwr ote in message
news:91e71e71.0 312040939.2c90b 9e5@posting.goo gle.com...
| Hi,
| I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
| Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
| help me with this?
|
|
| Thank you in advance.
|
| Yensao

[Nobody]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relationaldatab ase model and the Object-Oriented model

Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.


yensao wrote:

Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
>
>
Thank you in advance.
>
Yensao

[Alfredo Novoa]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

Nobody <nobody@nowhere .netwrote in message news:<xzbBb.650 50$_M.317461@at tbi_s54>...

Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.
>
That's all.
>

Is this a nonsense competition?


Alfredo

[Corey Brown]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo@ncs.es wrote in message
news:e4330f45.0 312090304.6a517 9b3@posting.goo gle.com...

Nobody <nobody@nowhere .netwrote in message

news:<xzbBb.650 50$_M.317461@at tbi_s54>...

Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.

>
Is this a nonsense competition?

Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one
table row
to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases, but
so what! There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems. Personally I use all the tools at my
disposal
when architecting a solution for a particular problem. I don't try to
wedge
relational database solutions into problems that can benefit from
alternate
database technologies.

--Corey

>
>
Alfredo

[Bob Badour]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message
news:8FlBb.6497 $Yt2.86@bignews 3.bellsouth.net ...

>
"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo@ncs.es wrote in message
news:e4330f45.0 312090304.6a517 9b3@posting.goo gle.com...

Nobody <nobody@nowhere .netwrote in message

news:<xzbBb.650 50$_M.317461@at tbi_s54>...

Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.
>
That's all.
>

Is this a nonsense competition?

>
Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.
Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one
table row
to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty

sure

that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

That's about as useful as observing the difference between cars and
airplanes is to note that airplanes use bulkheads and cars use airbags.

[Nobody]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relationaldatab ase model and the Object-Oriented model

No, it's more like difference between how smart you think you are and
how smart you really are. There's a *big* difference, but you'll never
see it.

Bob Badour wrote:

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message
news:8FlBb.6497 $Yt2.86@bignews 3.bellsouth.net ...
>

>>"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo@ncs.es wrote in message
>>news:e4330f45 .0312090304.6a5 179b3@posting.g oogle.com...
>>

>>>Nobody <nobody@nowhere .netwrote in message

>>
>>news:<xzbBb.6 5050$_M.317461@ attbi_s54>...
>>

>>>>Relationa l databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
>>>>pointer to physical storage location.
>>>>
>>>>That's all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is this a nonsense competition?

>>
> Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
>>nonsense.
> Don't relational databases rely on foreign keys to relate data in one
>>table row
> to another table row? I'm pretty sure they do and I am also pretty

>
sure
>

>>that ODBM
> systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

>
>
That's about as useful as observing the difference between cars and
airplanes is to note that airplanes use bulkheads and cars use airbags.
>
>

[Alfredo Novoa]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message news:<8FlBb.649 7

Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.
>
That's all.
>

Is this a nonsense competition?

>
Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.

Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.

I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.

Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases, but
so what!

So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.

There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems.

Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations .

But you need a good knowledge on the fundamental to decide when to use
one tool or other appropiately, and the kind of nonsenses we can read
here don't help.

Personally I use all the tools at my
disposal
when architecting a solution for a particular problem.

Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.


Regards
Alfredo

[Corey Brown]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo@ncs.es wrote in message
news:e4330f45.0 312100321.119aa 1c0@posting.goo gle.com...

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message

news:<8FlBb.649 7

>

Relational databases use keys. Object databases use some sort of
pointer to physical storage location.

That's all.

>
Is this a nonsense competition?

Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.

>
Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.

This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this. If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves? Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?

>

I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

>
And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.

So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
it
apply to your last statement? I know, I know go educate yourself.

>

Yes object databases are relatives of "Network Model" databases,

but

so what!

>
So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.

So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
been eclipsed by better designs. It doesn't mean that the
early designs are not practical or useful anymore.

>

There are certain types of applications that can benefit from
the
use of object database systems.

>
Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations .

I don't think the circumstances are all that special. And I certainly
hope
that application architects are looking at more than just the flaws
associated
with specific db technologies, instead of looking at the overall picture
of how
and where a particular db technology is going to be used.

>
But you need a good knowledge on the fundamental to decide when to use
one tool or other appropiately, and the kind of nonsenses we can read
here don't help.

Please see my comment above. It doesn't do anybody any good if you're
just going to keep telling people how "misinforme d" they are. Step up to
the plate and start transfering your knowledge to the people in the
trenches.

>

Personally I use all the tools at my
disposal
when architecting a solution for a particular problem.

>
Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.

Ok, but certainly you're not basing your decisions purely on the
theoretical
disadvantages of an ODBMS over an RDBMS. The whole picture of
how the application will be used, how much data will be stored, how it
will be retrieved, the complexity of the data relationships and the
environment that
the application must work in must also be taken into account.

My own automobile is theoretically and practically inferior to a new
hybrid
vehicle, but does that mean I have to stop using my car today just
because
better technology is available?

I firmly believe that both ODBMS and RDBMS technologies have areas in
which
each may excel over the other. Choose the right tool for the job, don't
choose the tool
and then force fit it into a particular job. I worked for Bell
Laboratories for over 18
years, so believe me when I tell you that I have seen more than my fair
share of applications
where the technology was decided on before the requirements were
analyzed, with the
end result being a miserable failure.

Cheers
--Corey

>
>
Regards
Alfredo

[Alfredo Novoa]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message news:<i6KBb.115 41$4t2.8346@big news4.bellsouth .net>...

Alfredo, why don't you explain to us why you think this answer is
nonsense.

Because it is evident for anybody with a grasp on data management.

>
This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from somebody
like Bob B. Why must you guys always answer direct questions with
inappropriate remarks like this.

You didn't asked why it is nonsense, you asked why I don't explain
that. I answered appropiately to your direct question.

If you have the knowledge and the
ability to express that knowledge to others, why don't you take a
few minutes out to lay down some cold hard facts, instead of just
telling us to go educate ourselves?

Among other things because a few minutes are not enough if you don't
have a clue, but I gave very good bibliography.

Why can't you step up to the
role of teacher and start explaining why you "think" one technology
is better than another?

I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.

>

I am also pretty sure
that ODBM
systems do use direct pointers to relate objects together.

And I am pretty sure that SQL DBMSes use pointers internally.

>
So your point about network databases being obsolete and discredited
doesn't count here? If using internal pointers is so foul, why doesn't
it
apply to your last statement? I know, I know go educate yourself.

You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.

So they are based in a primitive obsolete and discredited approach.
That's all.

>
So what! There are many many examples of technologies that have
been eclipsed by better designs. It doesn't mean that the
early designs are not practical or useful anymore.

If the new approach is better in all situations then the old approach
is not useful anymore.

Perhaps in very special circumstances when the flaws of the current
SQL DBMSes are more important than the network model inherent flaws,
and the flaws of the concrete OODBMS implementations .

>
I don't think the circumstances are all that special.

Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.

And I certainly
hope
that application architects are looking at more than just the flaws
associated
with specific db technologies

There are many application architects that ignore the funtamentals of
data management.

The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.

The very first implementations of superior technologies are often
worse at practice than the older products.

Me too, but I try to base my decisions on accurate information.

>
Ok, but certainly you're not basing your decisions purely on the
theoretical
disadvantages of an ODBMS over an RDBMS.

This thread is about a theoretical question: the differences between
the relational and the OO approaches, but it seems you don't
distinguish very well between model and implementation.

The whole picture of
how the application will be used, how much data will be stored, how it
will be retrieved, the complexity of the data relationships and the
environment that
the application must work in must also be taken into account.

The complexity plays against the network approach.

My own automobile is theoretically and practically inferior to a new
hybrid
vehicle, but does that mean I have to stop using my car today just
because
better technology is available?

No, but if the new technology is actually better we should stop making
traditional cars.

I firmly believe that both ODBMS and RDBMS technologies have areas in
which
each may excel over the other.

And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.

years, so believe me when I tell you that I have seen more than my fair
share of applications
where the technology was decided on before the requirements were
analyzed, with the
end result being a miserable failure.

Again, The Relational Model and The Network Model are not
technologies, they are models.

Regards
Alfredo

[Alfredo Novoa]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message news:<AO2Cb.62$ C24.51@bignews5 .bellsouth.net> ...

I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.

>
Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models but
about physical implementations . No one is confusing the two except for
you.

This is the original question:

"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?"

It is crystal clear. Isn't it?

You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.

>
Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
differences
between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
differences
between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations , at least I have, you seem
to be reading from a different hymnal.

Each OODBMS and each SQL DBMS may have a different implementation
technology, so what you say does not make sense.

If the new approach is better in all situations then the old approach
is not useful anymore.

>
I completely disagree. Have you given up the land line in your house
just because cell phones are considered better technology?

Bad example. Land lines have many advantages over cell phones.

Have you
switched from antenna and or cable to satellite because HDTV is
available. Will those technologies eventually eclipse older ones, you
bet, but not over night.

Another bad example. HDTV is possible and avaiable with cable and
antenna.

Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.

>
Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.

This is in contradiction with your posts.

See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.

I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.

The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.

>
Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.

If the flaws are solved, then the inferior approach hasn't anything to
do. Inferior approaches are dead ends.

The complexity plays against the network approach.

>
of interconnection s between them (mesh network). The only way
we could meet the requirement, while using a relational database
as the underlying data store, was to build out a network representation
of the network in memory first.

Due to the flaws of the SQL DBMS implementation. BTW SQL DBMSes can't
be considered as truly RDBMSes.

Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.

And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.

No, but if the new technology is actually better we should stop making
traditional cars.

>
Agreed, but again reality gets in the way. There are certain classes of
vehicles that do not lend themselves well to hybrid power plants.

So they are not better in all circumstances. So it was a bad analogy
because it is proven that The Relational Model is superior to the
network approach in all means.

And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.

>
Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?

Why?

Which euphemism do you like?

We are all ignorant about a
great many things

Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.

>, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
you
can't build jet engines do you?

I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you
say I am ignorant about aeronautics or bulgarian literature for
instance, I would agree without any problem.


Regards
Alfredo

[Bob Badour]

Re: Need help to understand difference, and contrast between Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo@ncs.es wrote in message
news:e4330f45.0 312120826.6c8d3 59c@posting.goo gle.com...

"Corey Brown" <corey@spectrum software.netwro te in message

news:<AO2Cb.62$ C24.51@bignews5 .bellsouth.net> ...

>

I can, but I don't want. To know that is the duty of any professional.
BTW we are talking about models, not about technology.

Actually, the original poster may NOT have been talking about models

but

about physical implementations . No one is confusing the two except

for

you.

>
This is the original question:
>
"I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?"
>
It is crystal clear. Isn't it?

Yes, it is crystal clear to those who comprehend simple written english.
Also direct him to the subject line that contrasts a model with a
model--well, with an alleged or hypothetical model in any case.

You don't know the difference between the logical and the physical
levels, you are more ignorant than I thought.

Yes I do Alfredo, but to date we have not been talking about the
differences
between physical and logical. We have been talking about physical
differences
between ODBMS and RDBMS implementations , at least I have, you seem
to be reading from a different hymnal.

>
Each OODBMS and each SQL DBMS may have a different implementation
technology, so what you say does not make sense.

I also observe that he clearly demonstrates his ignorance and confusion
regarding the difference between the logical and the physical when he
includes strictly physical issues in discussions of strictly logical topics.

Because you ignore the fundamentals of the data management field.

Sorry Alfredo, I don't ignore the fundamentals anymore than you do.

>
This is in contradiction with your posts.

His profound ignorance of fundamentals prevents him from even knowing what
the fundamentals are. I am sure he considers whatever his ignorant
prejudices tell him are fundamental. I find it sad (perhaps pathetic is more
appropriate) that so many vociferous ignorami pollute and debase our
profession.

See my statement above, but yes I do agree with you on this point.
A lot of this boils down to religious beliefs and unfortunately you
cannot
dispose religion with technological fact.

>
I hope you don't think that math and science are a religions.

To the devoted zealot, there is only religion.

The implementation flaws are the only reason that could make more
appropiate a tool based on an inferior approach.

Excellent, now were grounding out. There are implementation flaws
in ALL technologies. Those that can see and understand those flaws
are not doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.

>
If the flaws are solved, then the inferior approach hasn't anything to
do. Inferior approaches are dead ends.

Alfredo, you will never reach a person who cannot distinguish between a
property of an implementation and a property of a technology even when
stated explicitly. He is not only ignorant: his thinking is generally
confused and his values backward.

Did we lose anything by moving to an ODBMS, you bet we did. We lost
out ability to run ad-hoc queries against the data.

>
And you would have a lot to win with a good RDBMS which allows wide
physical independence. You would have the same performance or better,
ad-hoc queries and the rest of the advantages of The Relational Model.
That is what I am trying to say all the time.

I am surprised you let the suggestion he lost only one thing stand
unchallenged. Given there is no difference between an ad hoc query and a
well-formed formula, he lost the ability to express integrity. Given there
is no difference between an ad hoc query and a view or snapshot derivation,
he lost the ability to derive additional views of the data with the
concomitant loss of logical independence. He lost simplicity. He lost
elegance. He lost portability. He lost the ability to benefit from real
advances to the state of the art of data management.

And your belief is based on ignorance and inaccurate information.

Let's lose the whole "ignorance" thing ok?

>
Why?
>
Which euphemism do you like?

The power to lose the whole ignorance thing remains solely in his hands. To
lose it, he need only learn the fundamentals of his profession. He could
start by opening a good book.

We are all ignorant about a
great many things

>
Indeed, so there isn't anything insultant in the term.
>

, but you don't hear me calling you ignorant because
you
can't build jet engines do you?

>
I am utter ignorant about aeronautics and many other things, If you
say I am ignorant about aeronautics or bulgarian literature for
instance, I would agree without any problem.

The big differenc between you and Corey is you do not pretend to know
aeronautics or bulgarian literature and you do not make public
pronouncements or suggestions on either topic.