Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Extending my question. Was: The relational model and relational algebra - why did SQL become the industry standard?
>
>
>There are two separate questions here:
>1. Do we want duplicates in the data model, i.e., in the original relations
> and the results of queries?
>2. Do we want duplicates in intermediate results?
>
>I'm not completely sure what their answer to 1. is but I suspect it is
>something like "probably not".
>
That's not the impression I get from Date's article (see part II), but I have not read the book.
< quotes from book Hector Garcia-Molina, Jeffrey D. Ullman, and Jennifer Widom, DATABASE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION>
[Relational] algebra was originally defined as if relations were sets [sic!--italics added].Yet relations in SQL are really bags ... Thus, we shall introduce relational algebra as an algebra on bags.
...
For instance, you may have learned set-theoretic laws such as A INTERSECT (B UNION C) = (A INTERSECT B) UNION (A INTERSECT C), which is formally the "distributive law of intersection over union." This law holds for sets, but not for bags.
< quotes from book/ >
This does not look like it is dealing with intermediate results only...
> But how your algebra looks depends on how you
>answer question 2, because query optimization is the main raison d'etre of
>the algebra, and there it is a completely different story. It can for
>example be more efficient to postpone duplicate elimination. If you don't
>have a bag algebra you cannot express this in your algebra.
>
I don't think that anybody is suggesting that intermediate results need
to remove duplicates. It's
the end result that counts. E.g. in the following code fragment
int i; i = 5; i = 6;
an optimizing compiler would not bother update i to 5 because nobody is
interested in that intermediate value. In the same spirit intermediate
values
of relational expressions would be of interest only to the system
internally.
>Note that in the writings you mention Date only addresses the first
>question, where what you actually asked concerned mostly the second
>question.
>
See above...
regards,
Lauri Pietarinen
-- ________________________________________________________________ Lauri Pietarinen, Senior Consultant, Databases AtBusiness Communications Oyj, Kaapeliaukio 1, FIN-00180 Helsinki tel. +358-9-2311 6632, mob. +358-50-594 2011, fax +358-9-2311 6601 http://www.atbusiness.com, email: lauri.pietarinen@atbusiness.com _____________________________________________________________________Received on Thu Feb 13 2003 - 05:27:51 CST