Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: For the SQL Gurus out there, a question
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s_at_greenms.com> wrote in message
news:KaYWb.64294$%72.34500_at_twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Au contraire, I think you're the one that needs to review here.
>
> Cobb would say that the whole point is that you don't NEED to worry about
> the physical design.
>
> The database could be stored via pieces of paper in a pigeon-hole desk for
> all the dba cares about.
>
> So again, what does the logical design have to do with the physical design?
It all depends on what one calls logical and physical, isn't it? Using some nomenclatures, you only talk about tables in the physical design.
This , because it may well be that at this stage you may decide the best way to implement a given data storage is for example to use a flat file. As opposed to a r-table. It could even be an object in Oracle, for example. Which is not exactly a table, although it approaches it. Physical design, all of it, with that approach.
Logical is where you talk about entities, relationships, attributes. Or object classes and methods. It doesn't matter if the relationship is 1-1, 1-M or M-M at all, other than by design requirements. And how it is implemented is far from being of any concern.
So yes in some methodologies tables *are* part of the physical design, while in others they are exclusively part of the logical design. As for how all that applies to the OP, I lost track of the whole thing as well as losing interest when the slag started. Forgive me.
-- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospamReceived on Fri Feb 13 2004 - 04:21:03 CST