Re: Storing query language in relations

From: mountain man <prfbrown_at_magna.com.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:57:58 +1000
Message-ID: <gItk9.40010$g9.115939_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com>


"Paul" <pbrazier_at_cosmos-uk.co.uk> wrote in message news:51d64140.0209230146.320e13b2_at_posting.google.com...
> This is just an idea I've been having, I'm not sure if it's been
> visited before or if it's not worth pursuing.
>
> If we accept that a relational database is the most logical way to
> hold structured data, why not go a step further and store the actual
> queries in relational format? I know some DBMSs store the text of
> queries, view definitions, stored procedures etc. in tables but not in
> a normalised fashion.
>
> An advantage would be that the DB constraints would automatically
> validate the query so no need for parsing SQL code for syntax. Maybe
> it could be used for storing other (procedural) languages as well like
> C - it would be useful for large software projects - no need for loads
> of files and subdirectories and client apps could quickly find
> function definitions etc.
>
> Wasn't one of Codd's guidelines that metadata should also be stored
> relationally? I know the table definitions (DDL) are in many DBMSs.
> But generally a separation is made between the database and its query
> language (DML).
>
> I've not thought too deeply about how a schema for SQL queries (for
> example) could be implemented but it must be possible (kind of like
> the MS Access query grid but normalised).
>
> Is this taking things too far or might this line of thinking produce
> something useful? Has this been done already in some DBMS?

http://www.mountainman.com.au/software/history/it7.html

--
Farmer Brown
Falls Creek, Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/software
Received on Thu Sep 26 2002 - 03:57:58 CEST

Original text of this message