Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving

Ross and others. Perhaps if we only respond to the theory group then they will quit cross posting to CDP, which would be a great blessing. I would think that simple courtesy would work for most of them but they probably just click the respond button and don't notice that they are polluting a practical group with postings that are appropriate only on the theory group. Pity the poor soul who is trying to get a practical answer to a practical problem.
And to quote Mr. Lincoln, which I often do, "For people who like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing that they like". BobJ
"Ross Ferris" <ross_at_stamina.com.au> wrote in message news:26f6cd63.0310260541.7a6a9af9_at_posting.google.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:<GumdnaAjFvrJmQaiU-KYvg_at_golden.net>...
> > The values in a foreign key reference are redundant because they appear
in
> > multiple relations. In this case, the redundancy is appropriate and
> > necessary to represent the data.
>
> Interesting "admission", or at least an observation. Of course this
> redundancy is ONLY necessary because of the "flat earth" nature of SQL
> implementations.
>
> If the data were stored in a multi-valued database, or even an XML
> data store, then the redundant data could be removed.
>
> I find it "interesting" that when speaking in relation to SQL database
> structures you are willing to accept some fundamental flaws as being
> "necessary", and yet will go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to
> debunk systems that can happily eliminate this flaw.
>
> I'm reminded of a biblical quote about splinters, logs & eyes, but
> that would be only natural as you do appear to posses many of the
> traits of a religious zealot, and whilst I may see many of your
> comments are based on a total lack of understanding or knowledge of
> multi-valued database implementations in the real world, no doubt
> there are those that will blindly follow.
>
> For example, you may like to check your facts regarding Codd
> compliance of mv Data Structures, as I believe you will find that the
> latest 4.1 release of jBASE scores a perfect 12 ?!? (whilst even the
> Oracle darling can only scrape in an 11)
Received on Sun Oct 26 2003 - 16:58:22 CET