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

Save your breath, Laura. Asses don't have ears. And children don't pay attention. Besides, we are both responding to a troll - and like Mr. Lincoln's pig, the troll likes it.
BobJ
"Laura Hirsh" <lhirsh_at_gate.net> wrote in message news:tHBpb.4836$Oo4.2312_at_newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Mr. Badour,
>
> Frankly, you sir (and I use that term loosely), are an ass. I am tired of
> your uneducated, unprofessional, snide comments that serve no purpose. Get
a
> life!!!
>
>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:CtOdnSqF9973SDuiRVn-gw_at_golden.net...
> > "Dave Best" <davebest_at_usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:ea757642.0311031305.1beca7a4_at_posting.google.com...
> > > "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<fHrE46GYsFo$EwWN_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>...
> > > > In article <CUYmb.86063$Ms2.64480_at_fed1read03>, daveb
> > > > <davebest_at_SuPsAaM.net> writes
> > > > >"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.
> > > > >
> > > > >No, you have merely encoded the redundancy in the structural
> > relationship.
> > > > >
> > > > Where? There is no key (foreign or otherwise) with which to do the
> link,
> > > > because there is no need to do a link.
> > > >
> > > > So yes there is a structural relationship, but there is no
redundancy
> > > > because no information is stored - it is IMplicit in the data store,
> not
> > > > EXplicit.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Wol
> > >
> > > The foreign key is in the logical model. Any nested relation has a
> > > primary key consisting of the primary key columns of the containing
> > > relation (and which form a foreign key to it) plus its own primary key
> > > columns. In Pick, the primary key of a MV element is the primary key
> > > of the record plus its array index.
> > >
> > > A relational database with relation-value (nested) attributes can
> > > choose to physically store them clustered with the containing
> > > relation, and so does not have to physically store the redundant
> > > columns.
> > >
> > > The logical model of the data can be thought of as the API which a
> > > program uses to access the data. This is distinct from the way it is
> > > physically stored on the disk, which can be anything the vendor
> > > chooses, including the Pick method of value-encoded variable-length
> > > strings (so long as this representation is not exposed by the API).
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > You have to stop and consider to whom you are replying. Wol is ignorant
> and
> > stupid.
> >
> > For instance, the relational model requires the dbms to represent all
> > information as explicit data values in relations. Because of this, one
can
> > manipulate any information using the same simple, powerful tool:
predicate
> > logic. As soon as one represents information in any other way, one must
> > either accept limited functionality or increased complexity or both. In
> > Pick's case, it is clearly both less functional and more complex.
> >
> > As evidence of Wol's ignorance and stupidity, he actually thinks that
> > implicit physical representations of information have some advantage. He
> > lacks the cognitive ability to comprehend that the redundancy still
exists
> > at the logical level, and the only thing different is Pick has less
> > functionality for greater complexity.
> >
> > How many informed and intelligent people want to pay more and receive
> less?
> > Can you imagine someone walking into a store and declaring he wants to
pay
> > top dollar for pure crap? What would you conclude about such an
> individual?
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 11:38:32 CET