Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:43:49 +0100, "Rene de Visser" <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.de> wrote:

>> It's well known that the DBMSs that tried to treat relational
>> variables as types were a fiasco. The problems derived from such
>> fundamental mistake helped a lot.
>>
>I presume though, not for algebraically defined n-ary relations (n <> 1)?

I don't understand you. What do you mean with algebraically defined relations?

Something like this?:

http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?discriminated+union

>Otherwise this would lead directly to algebraic types,
>which would break the required uniformity of tuples within a relation.

I don't understand you, but if we treat to use relvars as types then we would break the Relational Model and we would not have relations at all.

See TTM page 28.

>I also presume that such DBMS languages only supported global relational
>variables?

I don't see the reason for such presumption.

Regards Received on Thu Nov 25 2004 - 18:02:09 CET