IRMA-International.org: Creator of Knowledge
Information Resources Management Association
Advancing the Concepts & Practices of Information Resources Management in Modern Organizations

Metrics for Controlling Database Complexity

Metrics for Controlling Database Complexity
View Sample PDF
Author(s): Coral Calero (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain), Mario Piattini (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain)and Marcela Genero (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain)
Copyright: 2001
Pages: 21
Source title: Developing Quality Complex Database Systems: Practices, Techniques and Technologies
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Shirley Becker (Northern Arizona University, USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-878289-88-9.ch003

Purchase

View Metrics for Controlling Database Complexity on the publisher's website for pricing and purchasing information.

Abstract

Software engineers have been proposing large quantities of metrics for software products, processes and resources (Fenton and Pfleeger, 1997; Melton, 1996; Zuse, 1998). Metrics are useful mechanisms in improving the quality of software products and also for determining the best ways to help practitioners and researchers (Pfleeger, 1997). Unfortunately, almost all the metrics put forward focus on program characteristics (e.g., McCabe, 1976, cyclomatic number) disregarding databases (Sneed and Foshag, 1998). As far as databases are concerned, metrics have been used for comparing data models rather than the schemata itself. Several authors (Batra et al., 1990; Jarvenpaa and Machesky, 1986; Juhn and Naumann, 1985; Kim and March, 1995; Rossi and Brinkemper, 1996; Shoval and Even-Chaime, 1987) have compared the most well-known models--such as E/R, NIAM and relational--using different metrics. Although we think this work is interesting, metrics for comparing schemata are needed most for practical purposes, like choosing between different design alternatives or giving designers limit values for certain characteristics (analogously to value 10 for McCabe complexity of programs). Some recent proposals have been published for conceptual schemata (MacDonell et al., 1997; Moody, 1998; Piattini et al., 2001), but for conventional databases, such as relational ones, nothing has been proposed, excepting normalization theory.

Related Content

Renjith V. Ravi, Mangesh M. Ghonge, P. Febina Beevi, Rafael Kunst. © 2022. 24 pages.
Manimaran A., Chandramohan Dhasarathan, Arulkumar N., Naveen Kumar N.. © 2022. 20 pages.
Ram Singh, Rohit Bansal, Sachin Chauhan. © 2022. 19 pages.
Subhodeep Mukherjee, Manish Mohan Baral, Venkataiah Chittipaka. © 2022. 17 pages.
Vladimir Nikolaevich Kustov, Ekaterina Sergeevna Selanteva. © 2022. 23 pages.
Krati Reja, Gaurav Choudhary, Shishir Kumar Shandilya, Durgesh M. Sharma, Ashish K. Sharma. © 2022. 18 pages.
Nwosu Anthony Ugochukwu, S. B. Goyal. © 2022. 23 pages.
Body Bottom