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

From: Rene de Visser <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:43:49 +0100
Message-ID: <co4ujm$rv1$1@news.sap-ag.de>

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:41a5e2e4.4452171_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> 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)?

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

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

In fact I don't see how this could work for n-ary relations (where n <> 1) in the presence of contraints as this would again could lead to the type being algebraic.

(algebraic types in the sense of types defined by an algebraic constraint of more than one variable).

Rene. Received on Thu Nov 25 2004 - 09:43:49 CST