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

From: Jan Hidders <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:32:50 GMT
Message-ID: <6cspd.634$%M1.32801@phobos.telenet-ops.be>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:06:40 GMT, Jan Hidders
> <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote:
>
>

>>are you seriously contending that DBMSs 
>>that treat relational variables as types are making a fundamental 
>>mistake because by definition relational variables and types are 
>>distinct in the sense that something cannot be both at the same time?

>
> Indeed, well expressed.

Thank you.

>>I simply cannot believe that you do not see what is problematic about 
>>this type of argument. Seriously.

>
> So what is problematic?

It's irrelevant. The question that must be answered is whether there are any practical problems if you redefine the notion of type such that it does include relational variables. That the original definition didn't is neither here nor there.

> It's well known that the DBMSs that tried to treat relational
> variables as types were a fiasco.

It is also well known that these were not technical problems.

Jan Hidders

Received on Thu Nov 25 2004 - 15:32:50 CST