From 22ae1ab5de22ebd4636a8c57774c77150fc86dc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Brewer Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:35:22 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] sec2 --- doc/paper3/LLADD.tex | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/paper3/LLADD.tex b/doc/paper3/LLADD.tex index ab28285..2ba5710 100644 --- a/doc/paper3/LLADD.tex +++ b/doc/paper3/LLADD.tex @@ -228,9 +228,9 @@ database systems and research projects for at least 25 years. Database systems are often thought of in terms of the high-level abstractions they present. For instance, relational database systems -implement the relational model~\cite{codd}, object oriented -databases implement object abstractions, XML databases implement -hierarchical datasets, and so on. Before the relational model, +implement the relational model~\cite{codd}, object-oriented +databases implement object abstractions \eab{[?]}, XML databases implement +hierarchical datasets~\eab{[?]}, and so on. Before the relational model, navigational databases implemented pointer- and record-based data models. An early survey of database implementations sought to enumerate the @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ transactions (OLTP), the physical model would probably translate sets of tuples into an on-disk B-Tree. In contrast, if the database needed to support long-running, read only aggregation queries (OLAP) over high dimensional data, a physical model that stores the data in a sparse array format would -be more appropriate~\cite{molap}. While both OLTP and OLAP databases are based +be more appropriate~\cite{molap}. Although both OLTP and OLAP databases are based upon the relational model they make use of different physical models in order to serve different classes of applications.}