Re: Pizza Example

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:28:25 -0500, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:

>"Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:c0e3f26e.0404041156.ae57634_at_posting.google.com...
>> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
>news:<c4p4q7$on1$1_at_news.netins.net>...
>> > "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:c0e3f26e.0404040326.7e59f8f9_at_posting.google.com...
>> > > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<c4o2at$frb$1_at_news.netins.net>...
>> > > > "rkc" <rkc_at_yabba.dabba.do.rochester.rr.bomb> wrote in message
>> > > > news:QtLbc.26194$nr4.17312_at_twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:c4nglq$7pt$1_at_news.netins.net...
>> > <snip>
>
>>
>> SQL DBMSs, not RDBMSs as such. But I didn't have to do that. I
>> could use e.g. Oracle's CLOB datatype, which allows up to 4GB of data.
>> Or I could have said varchar2(4000). RDBMS designers tend to like to
>> impose some kind of discipline on the data being stored, it isn't
>> really a performance issue - at least not from the DBMS's point of
>> view. But if you allow 4000 character pizza names in the database,
>> then you must allow for that in your user interface, which means
>> declaring 4000-character variables - something of a memory drain,
>> perhaps? Frankly it would just seem rather stupid to allow unlimited
>> length for every data item.
>
>I see no logic in this. The database need not constrain the size of data
>that is stored and the UI can either constrain it or not, as the
>designer/user see fit. Constraining the database to only store up to a
>particular length means that the database needs to be changed if a new valid
>value for an attribute arises that is longer than what was anticipated. The
>UI can permit scrolling to show only a limited number of characters, but
>scroll to show all. A report writer can wrap long values to a certain width
>for practicality. Unless there is a REAL business reason for limiting the
>number of characters for a value (or your DBMS product requires it or gives
>you better features if you do), don't do it. From what I have seen of RDBMS
>tools, those who use them are inclined to put an attribute of "color" in the
>database (for example) with a max number of characters for the value. All
>we need, then, is a new color to come available and you can bet that the
>name will be abbreviated now to keep it within that length. How silly IMO.

Doesn't "ALTER TABLE ... " make this problem go away?

>> > So, now, if you don't make the assumption that every item that someone
>could
>> > buy would have each attribute (such as Sauce), then how would you do
>> > t? --dawn
>>
>> In a SQL database you could just allow NULLs in those items. In a
>> true RDBMS that doesn't allow nulls you could either create a table
>> for each subtype of order_items or you could move the attributes like
>> crust_name into separate tables like:
>>
>> create table order_item_crust
>> ( order_no integer, item_no integer, crust_name references crusts
>> , foreign key (order_no, item_no) references pizza_order_items
>> , primary key (order_no, item_no)
>> );
>>
>> (Note that this table only allows a maximum of one crust per pizza).
>
>Yes, this does look like an RDBMS approach to the problem. I don't think it
>is a "natural" way to view the problem, but it follows a set of rules for
>what that is worth.
>smiles. --dawn

Maybe I've missed the point, but it seems to me the above solution is backwards. The order_item shouldn't reference crusts at all ... you need an intermediate table to resolve the possible many-to-many relationship of order_item to crust. Informally:

Table: crust (crust_id,

                        data ...)
Table: order_item

		(order_id,item_id, 
			data ...)
Table: item_crust 
		(crust_id references crust (crust_id), 
		(order_id, item_id) references order_item(order_id, item_id),
			data ...)

Hope that makes sense, it's late ...

Lemming

-- 
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.