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

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

I see it as almost a trivial definition.

> Which makes it difficult for me to understand Codd' s statement
>
> "A domain is simple if all its components are atomic (nondecomposable by the
> database system."
>
> and the requirement that all domains be simple,
>
> When this requirement does not seem amount to anything even within one
> model.

I think what he means is that the components are nondecomposable by relational operators as opposed to type operators.

Paul. Received on Wed Dec 01 2004 - 16:58:41 CST