Re: Demo: Modelling Cost of Travel Paths Between Towns

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0411151342.194acc76_at_posting.google.com...
> > YOU have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. I have less and
less
> > respect for you as time goes on. PA is not redundant. If the exact same
row
> > (all attributes) were stored twice, there would be redundancy. According
to
> > your MIS-interpretation, PA would be stored once in, say, a STATES
table,
> > along with some state_id, say 31 for PA, and the number 31 would be
stored
> > multiple times in the data tables to represent PA. But then 31 is
redundant
> > by your bizzare thought process. Either that, or there can only be one
row
> > for all towns in PA. You make no sense. Does not speak well for Xdb.
>
> My apologies, I lost context of the thread and assumed the PAs were
> added in the one-table presented by Mr Celko. If towns are stored in a
> separate table and linked to Celko's main table, then there would no
> longer be redundant towns.

Forget Celko's schema. Just because Celko did it doesn't make it correct. It's not correct for the requirements given, but that's not the point, which you are still not getting. This has been explained to you ad nauseum, and I will not do so again. What is frustrating is that we all know you _can_ understand it- you just don't _want_ to because it nullifies (no pun intended) a good deal of the hard work you put into Xdb. Don't throw good time after bad- modify what you've done so it makes sense. Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 15:13:02 CET