Re: Agility and Data Design (was: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL)

"Mike Preece" <michael_at_preece.net> wrote in message news:1b0b566c.0310240611.1b130a87_at_posting.google.com...
>
> On the contrary. Enforcing integrity is, in the experience of
> SQL-relational database adherents, of crucial importance. It is not
> important to the same degree in Pick.

I think what you mean to say is that it's not as hard. I don't think you mean to say that data integrity is not important for Pick. Do you? You're not saying that data corruption is okay, right?

> This is because there are fewer
> tables and fewer pointers between those tables - hence, less critical
> need to maintain their integrity. Where a SQL-relational database has
> pointers to tables containing related data, ...

(Don't say pointers! Foreign keys are not pointers, even if they look like them.)

> ... Pick has the data within
> the same item. Pick is a more sophisticated model resulting in simpler
> databases.

Um, can I ask a question? How do you handle what the RDBMS guys call a "many-to-many" relationship? That is, let's say we have people and phone numbers, and a single person may have arbitrarily many phone numbers, and a single phone number may be shared by arbitrarily many people. For example, I have a land line at my house that's associated with me, my wife, and my two kids. I also have a cell phone that's associated just with me, and my wife also has a cell phone. And I have a work phone: just for me. My wife and I share a fax number, too. There's also a main switchboard number at work that you can use to reach me, but also everyone in my building. Get it?

How can you have "the data within the same item" when there's no way to pick one vs. the other?

Marshall Received on Sat Oct 25 2003 - 05:34:56 CEST