Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: relations aren't types?

Re: relations aren't types?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:30:28 -0500
Message-ID: <r-SdnUoc6egUInmi4p2dnA@golden.net>


"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message news:slrnbu95u1.nqi.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net> schrieb:
> > [...] Thus "relation" refers to values of a generic type and not to a
> > specific type, per se. [...]
>
> I understand what a relation is. If anything, I'm fuzzy on the
> definition of "type".
>
> Consider the type "student" which is defined as as the set of tuples:
> {<"joe", "schmoe">, <"sally", "strauss">}. In what way is this not a
> type, or not a relation?

It is a relation and not a type as you allege--unless you care to show that some set of operations are uniquely defined for that set of tuples. Received on Sat Dec 20 2003 - 15:30:28 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US