Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Oracle and PICK

Re: Oracle and PICK

From: Ross Ferris <ross_at_stamina.com.au>
Date: 18 Apr 2004 04:14:45 -0700
Message-ID: <26f6cd63.0404180314.17ab3306@posting.google.com>


"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<PsadnVC91J-hxxzdRVn-hA_at_comcast.com>...
> The point is, IMO, that you can project a three dimensional relation (or,
> maybe a third order relation) onto a two dimensional space (rows, columns)
> without loss.

Obviously, and the pattern can be repeated for n-dimensions, allowing n-dimensional datasets to be represented using . The discussion then descends into the physical implementation, which in turn impacts performance in the real world, as you can also represent n-dimensions with flat files !

>
> If it weren't for the capacity of two dimensional tables to capture and
> retrieve data that might be three dimensional or beyond, a star schema
> would be impossible.

Or is it that a star schema is NECESSARY in order to represent n-dimensions using just 2 dimensions ?

>
> In other words, the table has only two dimensions, but the relation is of
> order 3, and therefore can list a (finite) set of points in a three
> dimensional space.

>
> Mathematical relations are not limited to finite cardinality, but I'm
> putting that limitation on the relations in the relational data model. Now
> that I think of it, is this a legitimate limitiation or not? Your
> thoughts.
>
>

In real terms the set of points is obviously finite, simply because of physical storage & representation limits, but the set of points could obviously be "arbitrarily large"
>
> Clear as mud?
Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 06:14:45 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US