Re: domain questionnaire

Thank you for the input. Comments are inline.

In article <3a931571.30087673_at_news.gte.net>, JRStern says...
>
>It is not clear today if that was a good idea or not. It seemed to
>make the database more tractable mathematically, perhaps. But, the
>streets are now teeming with "certified" database architects who use
>an identity field or GUID as their primary key at all times, I am not
>aware of good support for enumerable domains in major databases (there
>are constraints and hand-coded triggers and referential integrity, but
>those are not necessarily the same things), and the
>world/representation issue remains unresolved.

What is support for enumerable domains, besides database constraints?

>
>Did I answer the question? My position is that domains in re
>relational databases, are enumerable sets of values.

Sets. Seems to understand here.
Enumerable? Does it mean countable, finite, or something else? Values? Know this programmatic term, but does this change anything from mathematical perspective?

Alternatively, we could think of domains as CT structures with equality operation. Is equality all that database requires from domain? (Plus, maybe, '<' and more operations). Then, i assume that poorly defined object equality (through references, of course:-) should imply some undesirable consequences. Received on Wed Feb 21 2001 - 03:06:42 CET