Follow @DBDebunk
Follow @ThePostWest
In an old article I used a Hay-Ross exchange to illustrate how disregard for fundamentals and the associated name proliferation -- which underlies the industry's fad-to-fad tradition -- cause confusion that inhibits understanding of conceptual modeling for database design. A recent LinkedIn exchange -- hardly unique -- showed the article to be as relevant today as it was two decades ago, prompting me to bring it up to
date.
In Part 1
we reiterated pertinent fundamentals. Here is the re-written article
-- try to apply the fundamentals from Part 1 before you proceed with our debunking.
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Sunday, March 1, 2020
Muddling Modeling Part 1: Fundamentals
Follow @DBDebunk
Follow @ThePostWest
This recent "comment" reminded me of a decades-old article I published in response to a critique by David Hay of the "fact model" then newly proposed by Ron Ross as an "alternative to the data model". In a Letter to the Editor, Hay correctly observed:
“Data modelling, star schema, snow flakes, data vault. Implementing virtual data warehouses (many stage to modify relationships). Normalisation (using a lot of surrogate keys) all for the sake of business reporting analytics. Reason a SQL DBMS approach columns rows is mandatory.”
This recent "comment" reminded me of a decades-old article I published in response to a critique by David Hay of the "fact model" then newly proposed by Ron Ross as an "alternative to the data model". In a Letter to the Editor, Hay correctly observed:
“In our industry, there is a strong desire to put names on things. This is natural enough, given the amount of information that we have to classify and deal with in our work. To give something a name is to gain control over it, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when the name takes the place of true understanding of the thing named. Discourse tends to be the bantering of names, without true understanding of the concepts involved.”of which the above comment is an exquisite example.
Friday, February 14, 2020
TYFK:What Is a Relational Schema?
Follow @DBDebunk
Follow @ThePostWest
Note: About TYFK posts (Test Your Foundation Knowledge) see the post insert below.
Note: About TYFK posts (Test Your Foundation Knowledge) see the post insert below.
“A relational database stores information in a structured format called a schema. This schema is defined according the rules of database normalization. These rules are meant to ensure the integrity of the data. The schema for a database is broken up into the objects such as tables and constraints. Tables hold your data and are broken down into rows. each row represents a single entity such as a person and has columns which define the attributes of the entity such as age. Constraints define limitations around the data. For example a check constraint might limit the range of valid dates in a datetime column. From there queries can be run to extract data from the database. These queries will often join multiple tables to pull data from them.”First try to detect the misconceptions, then check against our debunking. If there isn't a match, you can acquire the necessary foundation knowledge in our POSTS, BOOKS, PAPERS, LINKS or, better, organize one of our on-site SEMINARS, which can be customized to specific needs.
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Thursday, January 30, 2020
TYFK: What Is a Relational Database?
Follow @DBDebunk
Follow @ThePostWest
The question got 18 answers online, but none came even close to being correct. This is the only one that merits debunking -- the rest will be posted on LinkedIn as "To laugh or cry?".
Note: While the question is about database, due to routine interchangeable use of database and DBMS, we suspect the intention was DBMS. Our debunking applies to database, and our correct answer makes the proper distinction.
First try to detect the misconceptions, then check against our debunking. If there isn't a match, you can acquire the necessary foundation knowledge in our posts, BOOKS, PAPERS or, better, organize one of our on-site SEMINARS, which can be customized to specific needs.
“RDBMS stands for Relational Database Management System. RDBMS is the basis for SQL, and for all modern database systems like MS SQL Server, IBM DB2, Oracle, MySQL, and Microsoft Access. RDBMS store the data into collection of tables, which might be related by common fields (database table columns). RDBMS also provide relational operators to manipulate the data stored into the database tables. An important feature of RDBMS is that a single database can be spread across several tables. This differs from flat-file databases, in which each database is self-contained in a single table. The most popular data model in DBMS is the Relational Model. It is more scientific a model than others. This model is based on first-order predicate logic and defines a table as an n-ary relation. The main highlights of this model are:
- Data is stored in tables called relations.
- Relations can be normalized.
- In normalized relations, values saved are atomic values.
- Each row in a relation contains a unique value.
- Each column in a relation contains values from a same domain.”
The question got 18 answers online, but none came even close to being correct. This is the only one that merits debunking -- the rest will be posted on LinkedIn as "To laugh or cry?".
Note: While the question is about database, due to routine interchangeable use of database and DBMS, we suspect the intention was DBMS. Our debunking applies to database, and our correct answer makes the proper distinction.
First try to detect the misconceptions, then check against our debunking. If there isn't a match, you can acquire the necessary foundation knowledge in our posts, BOOKS, PAPERS or, better, organize one of our on-site SEMINARS, which can be customized to specific needs.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Naming Relations: Singular or Plural?
Follow @DBDebunk
Follow @ThePostWest
Note: Revised 1/24/20.
Ignoring, for the purposes of this discussion, that a SQL table is not a relation[1], and we don't "store a list of an entity set" in it[2], naming relations involves two choices: (1) the name per se (person, people?), and (2) singular or plural (people or peoples? person or persons)? The former is determined at the conceptual level by the enterprise's business terminology[3]. While the RDM is mute on the latter, nevertheless foundation knowledge (here, what relations represent) is, as always, relevant.
Note: Revised 1/24/20.
“There is a lot of confusion when it comes to designing tables in SQL Server around whether to pluralize names or not. How do you choose whether to pluralize or not? If we want to store a list of people and their details do we use "Person", "Persons", "People" or "Peoples"? Some people will use "People" and some will use "Person", other persons or people would go for "Peoples" or "Persons". The defined standard is to go for non-plural because in a table we are storing a set of an entity and we name the table as the entity so if we want to store one or more people in a single entity or table, we store it or them in the “Person” table. If we stick to this then it makes other situations simpler and stops us having to think about how to pluralize a word, I have for example seen hierarchy pluralized as "hierarcys" [sic].
If we look at Relational Model of Data Large Shared Data Banks by none other than "E. F. Codd" who basically invented the relational database, the examples he gives are singular (supplier and component). If we then look at the ISO standard for naming things (11179-5: Naming and identification principles), this also says that singular names should be used "Nouns are used in singular form only".
For new projects or where you can easily change the name of entities then I would say you must use singular names, for older projects you’ll need to be a bit more pragmatic!”
--The.AgileSQL.Club
Ignoring, for the purposes of this discussion, that a SQL table is not a relation[1], and we don't "store a list of an entity set" in it[2], naming relations involves two choices: (1) the name per se (person, people?), and (2) singular or plural (people or peoples? person or persons)? The former is determined at the conceptual level by the enterprise's business terminology[3]. While the RDM is mute on the latter, nevertheless foundation knowledge (here, what relations represent) is, as always, relevant.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
TYFK: Why is a relational database so powerful?
Follow @DBDebunk
Follow @ThePostWest
Note: About TYFK posts (Test Your Foundation Knowledge) see the post insert below.
Note: About TYFK posts (Test Your Foundation Knowledge) see the post insert below.
“...the theoretical awesomeness of relational algebra is kinda hard to intuitively relate back to your payroll or audit-log tables - the real power is the computed join ... it lets you dynamically fetch sets of data in the exact format that you need ... with any group of tables in the dataset. Unlike other data models, where the things you can fetch are typically fixed when you define your elements, and where relationships between data - if any - are statically defined in advance ... joins let you specify the relationships between objects (rows and tables in SQL-based relational databases) ... create queries and run them on your data without needing to write a lot of extra code beyond the SQL itself. This Ad Hoc Query capability ends up being hugely valuable when doing "secondary" business tasks in a big data world such as doing reporting and analytics, and is often hugely difficult to do in non-relational environments without a lot of extra code and often a specialized reporting schema.”
“Relational theory as applied to databases is that all data is connected to each other, keyed to each piece ... And with a SQL query [you can] create anything that can exist, as output.”
“...main so called power of RDBMs lies within ACID compliance. A transaction in a RDB is Atomic, Consistent, isolated, durable ... makes a database useful, unique, or I suppose powerful ... let's say you update or insert some new record, right in the middle power goes out, due to ACID compliance your transaction will not go through ... either the operation will complete or fail, nothing in between. [And RDBMSs are] tried, tested and true for almost 50 years.”
First try to detect the misconceptions then check against our debunking (some of the above is correct per se but not directly relevant to
relational power, some only partially correct, and some is wrong. Can
you discern which is which?) If there isn't a match, you can acquire the necessary foundation knowledge in
our POSTS, BOOKS, PAPERS, LINKS or, better,
organize one of our on-site SEMINARS,
which can be customized to specific needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)