Comments on: TransRelational(TM) — The final debunking

By: Hotsos Symposium 2009 Day 1 « Seven Seconds

Hotsos Symposium 2009 Day 1 « Seven Seconds — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:21:23 +0000

[...] He lost credibility with me about two things. The first was his denial of SQL as an appropriate language to interact with relational database systems. He could have made a good point if he provided an alternative language that could and should replace SQL. The second thing was referencing this company called Required Technologies, Inc. in which he said this company built what’s called a Trans Relational Model. As Date said, this company built a relational system that claimed to have no DML or DDL, not to mention a CBO or joins. For some reason I felt like the only person in the room saying this guy is either senile or foolish. Well it turns out there are others who think the same as me. [...]

By: Confluence: Stephen Feldman

Confluence: Stephen Feldman — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:58:07 +0000

Hotsos Symposium 2009 Day 1…

Blackboard is in the house for the third consecutive year…”Aw Yeah!” I am pretty sure that’s what was in my head Monday morning when I stepped into the keynote by Chris Date…

By: DBMS2 — DataBase Management System Services » Blog Archive » Who’s who in columnar relational database management systems

Fri, 30 May 2008 07:47:22 +0000

[...] they’re time series data stores rather than full RDBMS. Mike is less eager to talk about Required Technologies, a failed columnar RDBMS startup that he was involved in, and which is the pretext for (through no [...]

By: The Monash Report»Blog Archive » Credibility in cyberspace

The Monash Report»Blog Archive » Credibility in cyberspace — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:09:27 +0000

[...] Now that I’ve meandered for a while, let me mosey on back toward the question raised in Scoble’s post. What tests of credibility should we impose on bloggers in the area of (enterprise) technology? I think what Scoble proposes about sourcing, linking, etc. are way too restrictive, and in some cases even silly. One should never post anything unless one has a named, on-the-record source?? C’mon. Some of the best investigative reporting is based on anonymous sourcing, very carefully confirmed. (Here’s an example of me taking this route.) Indeed, sometimes a reviewer or analyst is able to come to an informed conclusion based solely on his or her own judgment or experience, without contacting anybody else to be told what to think. Analysis may overlap with journalism, but it’s not the same thing. [...]

By: Curt Monash

Curt Monash — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:22:39 +0000

Better than one order of magnitude in one measure vs. one alternative is not “orders of magnitude” improvements overall, and certainly not specifically in performance.

By: Scarlet Pimpernel

Scarlet Pimpernel — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:53:09 +0000

It had better than a 10X advantage in storage space vs. a highly denormalized star-schema approach. However, claims of “orders of magnitude” performance improvements are utterly unfounded.

Better than a 10X advantage would represent at least one order of magnitude.