Re: Table(s) definition problem

It sounds like a supertype and subtypes rather than very separate types, don't you think? I'm guessing a subtype design pattern would work and there are several such. --dawn

"--CELKO--" <joe.celko_at_northface.edu> wrote in message news:a264e7ea.0402271056.3b2f6bc0_at_posting.google.com...
> >> I have a very wide table (over 1000 attributes). I can group the
> attributes into several, ~20, disjoint sets where the elements of each
> set occur together. <<
>
> That makes no sense. A table models a set of things of one kind; each
> rows is one instance of that kind of thing; each column models an
> attribute by storing scalar values. This nightmare is a blob of ~20
> different things!! What would the name of this thing be in a logical
> data model? -- something along the lines of
> "Bagpipes_Automobiles_SuperModels_ .._Alligators" for ~20 nouns where
> the undescore can be read as "or maybe" ??
Received on Fri Feb 27 2004 - 20:36:59 CET