Re: Variable tables

From: Google Poster <goposter_at_jonjay.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <332af0ae-ba98-4ff6-bd4f-3a65136ec00c_at_o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>



On Sep 4, 2:43 am, "David Portas"
<REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dpor..._at_acm.org> wrote:
> "Google Poster" <gopos..._at_jonjay.com> wrote in message
>
> news:67eb6c60-22c8-4aaf-bc98-2fb9b78249c0_at_z16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a continuation of my whining against the relational model.
>
> > Yes, I realize that it is efficient and its theoretical background is
> > elegant, nay, beautiful. I read all about it when I was in college.
>
> > The problem is like trying to put a round peg in the proverbial square
> > -actually: rectangular- hole.
>
> > We deal with many different companies and have to replicate their
> > database structure. A feature that comes to mind is the variable
> > 'struct' in C. IIRC Oracle supports something like that. I envision a
> > table whose fields are divided in two classes:
>
> > - common fields, which are used by all instances of such table
> > - a variable (or "custom" for lack of a better term) part which is
> > specific to each case.
>
> > I would like to re-use the programs (I program with the Pro C
> > precompiler). across the "variant" tables.
>
> > TIA,
>
> > GP
>
> All tables are "variable", ie. table structure is dynamic rather than fixed.
> Schema change is the norm in many if not most databases and the only
> question is how you manage that change (essentially a management problem
> rather than a technical one).
>
> --
> David Portas

I believe we have a time scaledifference as to what constitutes dynamism:

  • You are referring to table structure (its fields) changing from one year to the next. What you are essentially saying is that the only tables ever that remain constant are those given by God to Moses. People don't put those kinds immovable stuff in software (hardware perhaps).
  • I am referring to the table structure changing from a millisecond to the next. In a tight loop, the table is seen as having certain structure, and next iteration it is seen as different. That is a technical issue.

In my C example I should have used the word "union".

-GP Received on Fri Sep 04 2009 - 06:14:38 CDT

Original text of this message