Re: Grammatical Inconsistencies
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:16:33 -0500
I would agree that join conditions (e.g. restrictions on the rows) are used to keep from having a full cartesian cross-product in the result set, but otherwise I suspect they are using these terms loosely, which is fine if they are not trying to be precise. Yes, a where clause or JOIN ON clause is required to perform the restriction otherwise your cartesian cross-product will have no restrictions. In other words, I think the statements below might be helpful to give a beginner an idea of how this works, but surely a cartesian cross-product and a join are not mutually exclusive operations.
"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message
> According to Elmasri & Navathe...
> In Relational Theory, the term JOIN implies a "join condition" that
> a Cartesian product. So, there are two terms used, JOIN and CARTESIAN
> PRODUCT. They are mutually exclusive. You might specify
> on dept_nbr
> or, you might, for some unknown reason specify
> employees CARTESIAN PRODUCT departments
> Of course, thge above would be expressed in relational algebra, which
> be reproduced in text. But, you can see that I have specified two
> different operation. Note that you can't specify
> employees JOIN departments
> as this is incorrect.
> Now, we understand in a certain way what we perceive to be really going
> and that's where the confusion comes in. In SQL, we know that when you
> SELECT from > 1 table, all tuples are "joined" so that there is one new
> tuple for each possible combination- and the result is a Cartesian
> But the "joining" is just our mental interpretation of what we imagine to
> happening. If you want to truly, relationally JOIN the two tables, you
> a WHERE clause to specify the JOIN criteria.
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > OK -- I thought all of these operations were on relations and returning
> > relations.
> > Thanks for enlightening me EVEN THOUGH you said you would filter me out.
> > Are you willing to bother showing me an example of the use of a join
> > the relational theory framework where it is not the same as the
> > cross-product -- or pointing me to some such example? I suppose I'm
> > my luck, eh?
> > --dawn
> > Timothy J. Bruce" <uniblab_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b4Vhc.1344$17.159553_at_news1.epix.net...
> > > [I'm going to hate myself in the morning for this...]
> > >
> > > The cartesian product of any number of sets defines a RELATION.
> > > The intersection, union, and symetric difference of any number of sets
> > > defines a SET.
> > >
> > > Patrick Suppes: ``Introduction to Logic'', Van Norstrand Company, Inc
> > > (August 1968)
> > > Ralph P. Grimaldi: ``Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics'',
> > > Reading-Mass.: Addison-Wesley (1985)
> > > Larry J. Goldstein, David I. Schneider, Martha J. Siegel: ``Finite
> > > Mathematics And Its Applications'', Prentice-Hall, Inc (1995)
> > > Kolman, Bubsy, Ross: ``Discrete Mathematical Structures'',
> > > (2000)
> > > Donald E. Knuth: ``The Art of Computer Programming: Volume 1:
> > > Algorithms (third edition)'', Addison-Wesley (1997)
> > > Donald E. Knuth: ``The Art of Computer Programming: Volume 3: Sorting
> > > Searching (second edition)'', Addison-Wesley (1998)
> > >
> > > But what would Knuth know since he isn't a ``relational guy'',
> > > Timothy J. Bruce
> > > uniblab_at_hotmail.com
> > > </RANT>
> > >
> > >
Received on Thu Apr 22 2004 - 23:16:33 CEST