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
>>>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

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

Database questions? Check the forum: 

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