Re: Relational vs. PICK/Object DBMS

From: x <>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:11:10 +0300
Message-ID: <>

  • Post for FREE via your newsreader at ****

> So, Ross was asking for the problem statement in a common language and
> without a start at a solution (terms such as "base table" are clear
> indicators of a solution in relational theory).

The problem was not a start at a solution. I appreciate any solution (not necessary relational) that use an equivalent schema.

> Make sense? (I'm not talking to Mr. Bruce here bz he filters me out,
> on wood).

Yes. It does.
But isn't the theory a way of solving a problem without revealing its real world applications ? :-)

If you have any record with all the attributes defined on "non simple domains" (multivalue) and start applying the normalisation algorithm you end up with a schema similar to the one I gave.

The same thing happen if you have any optional (or alternative) attribute.

Now, if you want to model a temporal database, all attributes become multivalued ...


  • - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Fri Apr 23 2004 - 13:11:10 CEST

Original text of this message