Re: Pizza Example

From: Jerry Gitomer <jgitomer_at_erols.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:32:21 -0400
Message-Id: <pan.2004.04.18.01.32.20.45299@erols.com>

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:54:23 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

> In message <c0e3f26e.0404160207.2c446825_at_posting.google.com>, Tony
> <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> writes

>>"Anthony W. Youngman" <wol_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:<3liqSxG8WvfAFw3H_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>...
>>> It's all very well saying data about my fingers (of which I have ten)
>>> is different from data about me (of which there is only one), but by
>>> storing the data in different tables, the database has lost the
>>> information that the fingers and the rest of me are all one thing.
>>
>>You still persist in believing that nonsense about "losing information"
>>by decomposing data?  This just reflects your ignorance of how an RDBMS
>>works, and it is time you rectified that.

>
> It happens in the scientific world all the time. Why should the data world
> be any different?
>

Because data integrity standards are much more rigorous in the commercial world than in the world of science. For example, it is not at all unusual for a scientist to be pleased that 90% of the sample data collected on a project is good data and only 10% is bad data that will be discarded and/or ignored. When it comes to dealing with payroll data, payables and receivables, and inventories anything less than 100% is unacceptable and checks and balances are built into commercial systems to insure that all of the data is collected and that, before it goes into the database, all is valid.

Jerry Received on Sat Apr 17 2004 - 20:32:21 CDT