Re: A Normalization Question
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:21:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4106d582$0$566$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>>On 8 Jul 2004 22:05:47 -0700, Neo wrote:
>>
>>>References aren't within the scope of normalizing things in a db
>>>because they are independent of the things being represented.
>>
>>Hi Neo,
>>
>>Yahoo!!! You've finally got it.
>>
>>Have you ever tried storing a real person in a computer? Did (s)he fit?
>>Did (s)he object to your attempts? Of course you didn't. Instead, you use
>>the persons' name as a reference to the person - names can be stored in a
>>computer, persons can't.
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:21:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4106d582$0$566$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Hugo Kornelis <hugo_at_pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote:
>>On 8 Jul 2004 22:05:47 -0700, Neo wrote:
>>
>>>References aren't within the scope of normalizing things in a db
>>>because they are independent of the things being represented.
>>
>>Hi Neo,
>>
>>Yahoo!!! You've finally got it.
>>
>>Have you ever tried storing a real person in a computer? Did (s)he fit?
>>Did (s)he object to your attempts? Of course you didn't. Instead, you use
>>the persons' name as a reference to the person - names can be stored in a
>>computer, persons can't.
> > > You need a mainframe for that sort of storage.
You 'ld need to throw the electronics out of the old box to get the space. Now there's redundancy. Received on Wed Jul 28 2004 - 00:21:52 CEST