Re: Stored fields ordered left to right

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:08:08 -0500
Message-ID: <>

"Jonathan Leffler" <> wrote in message news:h3sHb.8655$
> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> > "Jerry Gitomer" <> wrote:
> >>Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> >>>"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
> >>>>"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <> wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>>>> Date writes "...MVS fields are ordered left to right (and
> >>>>> so MVS files are certainly not relations, and the system is
> >>>>> certainly not relational)."
> >>>>>
> >>
> >><big snip>
> >>
> >>Allow me to play the role of the fool jumping in where angels
> >>fear to tread.....
> >>
> >>Two points which may clarify RDBMS implementation (as opposed to
> >>theory).
> >>
> >>1. The relationships are imposed externally to the data in the
> >>form of indexes and/or foreign keys. The data itself is
> >>unordered. [...]
> >>
> >>2. Within a table row the physical order of the columns as
> >>stored on disk need not conform to the logical order of the
> >>columns as specified in the CREATE TABLE statement. [...]
> >
> > Yes, this is most helpful. This is PRECISELY my understanding --
> > that deciding to remove the ordering from relational tuples is an
> > implementation issue and not about the logical theory of relations.
> >
> > I work with relations that are mathematical relations and are
> > therefore ordered tuples. The model behind XML documents is also
> > one of ordered tuples. So, if you hear of folks who might sometimes
> > spout that their database model is "more relational" than RDBMS's
> > it sometimes is due to this particular issue.
> >
> > Based on this, it sounds like a response to Date that says that
> > mathematical relations are ORDERED and not unordered tuples so that
> > this particular point is irrelevant (and, in fact, wrong) would be
> > an accurate response, right?


> It depends on the premises from which you work.

> One of the documented differences between mathematical relations and
> relations used in database theory is precisely this one - that the
> elements in a tuple of a mathematical relation are ordered (usually
> ordered pairs, in fact) but database theory uses unordered tuples,
> where each element logically consists of the combination attribute
> name, attribute type and attribute value. Of course, in a system
> without inheritance to complicate matters, the attribute type
> associated with a given attribute name is the same for all tuples in
> the relation (but the converse is not true). The difference between
> ordered mathematical relations and the unordered database equivalent
> is clearly stated in Codd's original (1970) paper, incidentally:

> Accordingly, we propose that users deal, not with relations
> that are domain-ordered, but with relationships which are
> their domain-unordered counterparts.

> [Note the implied distinction between what users see and what the
> system manages, too.]

> Many practical systems store each record (physical analogue of a
> tuple) with the fields (the physical analogue of an attribute) stored
> in the same order, which makes it easier to locate a given field
> within a given record. And many systems make life still easier by
> storing the data for a given field in a constant width, so it is
> trivially possible to pre-calculate the offset into the record for a
> given attribute value.

> To get back to the question - if you change the premises on which your
> version of relational theory is based to state that your tuples are
> indeed ordered, then of course Date's statements no longer apply. The
> theory about which he is making statements states that tuples are
> unordered. Both are valid sets of premises, but they are different
> sets of premises, and statements made about one are not valid for the
> other.

> As to which set of premises is better - that is a separate discussion.
> I strongly suspect there are a rather large number of issues that
> have to be resolved when you use ordered tuples rather than unordered
> tuples. Most notably, A JOIN B is not the same a B JOIN A under the
> ordered scheme - with consequences that need to be considered very
> carefully.

> And, reverting to the final question again - no, Date's comments are
> neither irrelevant nor wrong in the system about which the comments
> were made.

Mathematical relations do not rely on attribute order. The physical representation of mathematical relations using written symbols on planar surfaces conventionally uses attribute order for succinctness. Received on Sun Dec 28 2003 - 10:08:08 CET

Original text of this message