Re: Codd provided appropriate mathematics ... (was Re: Relational and MV (response to "foundations of relational theory"))
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:47:21 GMT
Message-ID: <txy1c.28878$W74.13670_at_newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Hey Dawn, I think Bob B. has a crush on you! I mean he writes about you with so much passion!
As a kid I learned that if a boy pulls a girl's hair it's because he wants to get that girl's attention - and the more he pulls, the more attention he wants/needs! In addition, Bob B. tries to uses impressive words in his *attacks* ... as in "I'll 'rev' my engine so you'll take notice of me"...
Poor soul...
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:CISdnZsuccZV_tvdRVn-jQ_at_golden.net...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ejl1c.55384$GT6.254_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c1lhip$8lb$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:k6r%b.50112$LX2.42031_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > As an aside in this discussion, I've seen "multivalued" defined 2
> > > different
> > > > ways in explanations of relational (some of which are really bad).
> > > >
> > > > 1. Where attribute A can hold a list of values (type LIST)
> > > > 2. Where there are attributes A1, A2, A3, A4 (for example), all of
the
> > > same
> > > > type and meaning. For example, ADDR1, ADDR2, etc.
> > > > [...]
> > > > Does 1NF refer to both of these? If not, what's the proper
terminology
> > for
> > > > each of these cases?
> > >
> > > Good question because it is likely clear to most data folks that 1,
> which
> > is
> > > the one more often referred to as multivalued (there is a MultiValue
> > > trademark associated with one such model) and is not permitted by the
> > > relational model, is a much better strategy than 2, which is
permitted.
> >
> > Agreed that 2 is awful, but option 3, the relational way, is better yet.
> >
> > > I don't think there are any theories related to data storage and
> retrieval
> > > that would suggest that 2 is good design, but relational data modeling
> in
> > > practice is much more likely than others to promote this poor approach
> >
> > Not really - even in SQL, those who do something like option 2 are
> vilified
> > and stoned in the town square. People keep doing it, but they're usually
> > uneducated or lazy (since I see it done even with very simple data
models
> > where it's completely unnecessary).
>
> I've only ever seen one really egregious use of multiple columns of
> conceptually identical data, and ironically it was created by someone just
> as ignorant and just as vociferous as Dawn. Perhaps, in five years I will
> find myself cleaning up one of Dawn's messes just as I recently cleaned up
> the other mess left by some ignoramus who years ago preferred to argue
with
> me than to learn anything useful.
>
> Received on Thu Mar 04 2004 - 05:47:21 CET