3 ms·
Aren't multi-table indexes otherwise known as indexable views? Plus, I can't see any mention of how exactly the data is stored on disk. A lot of stuff about t
by adwf 12y ago
Aren't multi-table indexes otherwise known as indexable views?
Plus, I can't see any mention of how exactly the data is stored on disk. A lot of stuff about the language used to access it, but nothing about the storage which is 99% of any database engine. One of the purposes of a properly normalised RDBMS (eg. key tables/star schemas/etc) is to minimise the number of bytes on disk in order to optimise the slowest component - reading from disk.
- autarch 12y agoIn the ideal world of relational databases, storage would be defined separately from logical structure. In other words, DDL and DML operate on logical things (relations, domains, etc.), and we'd have some other language/tools to tell the DBMS how to lay things out on disk. Of course, in the really ideal world the DBMS just comes up with the best storage solution without manual intervention ;)
- jerven 12y agoThe SPARQL/RDF world is moving to that "figure out the best storage solution itself". You just throw data into a system and the system figures out how best to store it. There is some research code for this in MonetDB and the openlinksw/virtuoso guys are hinting about it in their latest blog posts for their upcoming release. Basically as some people like to call it, they want to infer the relational schema hiding in your RDF data. Currently most SPARQL endpoint store data in two tables a quad/triple table and a big id to value table. But there is no need to do so. Main problem with SPARQL and RDF problem is that as the schema is in the data its difficult to figure out how data is connected and how one can use it. But the W3C is starting up a workgroup to work on that problem, for tool builders to solve this.