List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Martijn Tonies Date:February 13 2009 9:40pm
Subject:Re: Codd's rule 8 (physical data idependence)
View as plain text  
Hi Jerry,

>>>*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.

I think you're right, but a "non transactional storage engine" fails on
a higher rule: namely the atomicy rule.

A non transactional engine is of near no use.

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com

Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL
Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase, NexusDB and Firebird!

Database questions? Check the forum:
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com 

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