List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Jerry Schwartz Date:February 13 2009 9:32pm
Subject:RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
View as plain text  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Brawley [mailto:peter.brawley@stripped]
>Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:02 PM
>To: Yusuf Khan
>Cc: mysql@stripped
>Subject: Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
>
>>*Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical storage
>or
>>access ethods change.*
>
>Changing the storage engine for tables, for example from a transactional
>to non-transactional engine, changes the database logic.
>
[JS] Is that really an example of Codd's rule #8? It is a higher-level
change than simply going from a hard drive to a RAM drive to magnetic tape,
any of which could conceivably be used with any of the storage engines.

>PB
>
>Yusuf Khan wrote:
>> Hello all
>>
>> Does MySQL 5 conform to Codd's rule 8, i.e. physical data
>independence,
>> which says that:
>>
>> *Applications should not be logicaly impaired when the physical
>storage or
>> access ethods change.*
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>>
>>
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1909 - Release Date:
>1/22/2009 7:08 AM
>>
>>



Thread
Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Yusuf Khan13 Feb
  • Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Peter Brawley13 Feb
    • RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Jerry Schwartz13 Feb
  • Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Martijn Tonies13 Feb
    • Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)Baron Schwartz13 Feb
    • RE: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)US Data Export13 Feb