I have no idea why, but it makes me happy that the use of Null in SQL is controversial: linky-poo

Null is awesome.

The ISO SQL implementation of Null is the subject of criticism, debate and calls for change. In The Relational Model for Database Management: Version 2, Dr. E.F. Codd suggested that the SQL implementation of Null was flawed and should be replaced by two distinct Null-type markers. The markers he proposed were to stand for "Missing but Applicable" and "Missing but Inapplicable", known as A-values and I-values, respectively. Codd's recommendation, if accepted, would have required the implementation of a four-valued logic in SQL.[3] Others have suggested adding additional Null-type markers to Codd's recommendation to indicate even more reasons that a data value might be "Missing", increasing the complexity of SQL's logic system. At various times, proposals have also been put forth to implement multiple user-defined Null markers in SQL. Because of the complexity of the Null-handling and logic systems required to support multiple Null markers, none of these proposals have gained widespread acceptance.

Now I really want to study more database theory....

I have long been coming to the conclusion that relational databases are more trouble than they're worth. There are certain domains where they are absolutely necessary, but people use them in lots of circumstances where they don't fit the problem.

Ruby on Rails being a prime example.

I have long been coming to the conclusion that relational databases are more trouble than they're worth.

Dem's fightin' words!

Ok, not really.

I don't know much about Ruby on Rails, so I googled. So I guess it requires a relational database? Huh.

Tom, you gotta say more than that. Give us some examples of where you think that relational databases are accepted, but you think they're overkill.

Give us some examples of where you think that relational databases are accepted, but you think they're overkill.

Yeah, I'm curious too. Almost everything I do involves accounting software for big construction companies, which is a quintessential example of where relational databases are required....

The thing is, relational databases are expensive. Relational algebra is computationally expensive. ACID transactions are computationally expensive. Backing up databases is expensive. Replicating databases is expensive. If you don't have to use those things, why pay for them? And a database server adds a critical component that will cause your whole system to fail if it goes down.

Meanwhile, writing your data directly to the filesystem, is cheap, easy, and OS developers have spent decades optimizing their performance. Backing up and replicating filesystems is a well-understood problem. And judicious use of atomic renames can give you 80% of what ACID gives you.

Do you think that the need for ACID transactions is overstated, then? I have to cop to being a whore for normalisation, so I'm going to have to ask a whole lot of questions.

Kick start my imagination. The textbook first app for relational databases is often an invoice, so that the fledgling programmer can get the sense of the relations between customers, invoices, and invoice headers and detail lines. Would you suggest the development of the data model (many to one relationships, et al) be done differently on paper too? Or is it just how you translate that into the digital realm?

You know what my three table structure looks like--tell me about your filesystem.

Hey Drew, when you eventually wake up and poke your head in here, I have a question for you (or omnis, or anyone else who pokes their head in here and can offer an informed opinion):

I was looking around for tips on trying to get Pro Tools running on Leopard. So far, I have had no luck finding info on how to get it running. And in fact, a lot of people (who aren't just waiting on Digidesign to release an update) were talking about just switching to Logic.

So, aside from the fact that I already possess a copy of ProTools and Logic Studio is $500, is there some other reason I should use ProTools instead of Logic Studio for a sound editing suite?

In my opinion ProTools has a much more streamlined workflow. There's a reason pretty much every professional studio uses ProTools.

In my opinion ProTools has a much more streamlined workflow. There's a reason pretty much every professional studio uses ProTools.

Good enough reason to not spend $500. I was just wondering.