Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:11:58 GMT
Message-ID: <41aded45.6070921_at_news.wanadoo.es>

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:48:26 +0100, "Rene de Visser" <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>I am not sure that the split between complex and simple is well defined at
>all.

It is not well defined at all.

For instance one type might have several representations. Some of them may have one component and the others may have several.

For instance we may have a date value represented by an integer (741543) or represented by a char array ('2004/12/2') or represented by an array of integers (2002, 10, 25)

Regards Received on Wed Dec 01 2004 - 17:11:58 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
Previous message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Maybe in reply to: Rene de Visser: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
Next in thread: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
Reply: Rene de Visser: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message