Re: Multiple specification of constraints

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:6124c.9096$YG.81835_at_attbi_s01...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Exn1c.20851$mK4.3170_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Agreed. And if we had languages that supported relations for all
processing,
> > we wouldn't be in the O-O mess we're in now. It would be just amazingly
> > useful to be able to perform relational operations on data in memory...
and
> > then, at the end when satisfied, persist it.
>
> Okay, that sounds great and all, but how's it going to work? For one
thing,
> the operations shouldn't be limited to what's in memory any more than
> the DBMS has that restriction. And what about things like keys?
> Let's say we want to migrate some hierarchically-stored data into
> our RDBMS, how do we make that work? We need to have the
> foreign keys, which means we need to allocate keys for every tuple.

We need to have logical identifiers. Once we have those, I fail to see a problem.

> How do we manage the key space in a client-server world? Do the
> keys in the data have to be unique before they're insterted? How do
> we enforce that in a distributed environment?

You seem to think distribution poses problems for this. I don't see any problems. Would you care to elaborate on the specific problems you see? Received on Thu Mar 11 2004 - 19:29:55 CET