On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, srielau_at_ca.ibm.com wrote:
> Brian Peasland wrote:
>> And I only want to be querying for the entire document. I do
>> not want to be pulling pieces out of that XML document. If I'm
>> going to do that, then I'd much rather store the attributes in
>> a relational table.
> Let's go back to the tax forms: This attribute is a line in your
> tax-return. It was introduced in year x and it will disappear in
> year y depending on how the political wind blows.
> Now one can insist in relational by pivoting the tables and many
> products do just that. But what's relational about a table that
> adds "COLUMNNAME" to the primary key and an ANYTYPE column named
> "VALUE"?
I don't understand why you couldn't extend the relational model, maybe a
subtyped table to house that attribute for the time period it was
available? That would be infinitely more readily found and reported in
a relational format. 5 years from that, how easily could you find that
attribute and report on it if it was in XML storage?
--
Galen Boyer
Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 18:03:02 CDT
