Re: Views for denomalizing

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:45:27 -0800
Message-ID: <1107441768.808277@yasure>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

>>1. There is no such thing as a database that confirms with SQL92.
>>It just doesn't exist. Nor is SQL92 one thing.

>
> I only used SQL92 in the statement because I believe that the SQL3
> specification allows for "nested relations" or "child tables" or
> you-pick-the-language as I seem to be missing. I did think there was a
> single SQL92 standard even if implemented differently by each vendor. Is
> that not the case?

You are still incorrect ... SQL92 is not one thing ... and there is not a single commercial RDBMS that ever met it nor would anyone expect that there would ever be. It appears that you are commented on something that you haven't actually read.

>>2. There is no relationship between 3NF, or anyNF and views or
>>denormalization.

>
> Views, like base tables, map to relations. As relations, we can discuss
> whether they are in this or that normal form -- isn't that correct? If not,
> what is it precisely that I am getting wrong.

We can discuss anything. We can discuss invisible purple rhinos. But that doesn't make a relationship to denormalization exist.

>>3. Absolutely not. A view might, and I emphasize MIGHT have one for
>>that purpose but most views written have nothing to do with end users.

>
> The users to whom I'm referring are you and me.

I'm not a user. Not of drugs and not of views. Nor would I expect to find "end-users" posting at c.d.theory.

> A DBMS is a software
> application for a set of users -- the users I'm referring to are any who use
> the DBMS software directly. That would include any person or software
> issuing SQL commands, for example.

But most RDBMS users are machines. Machines doing batch processing at 2am. Most are printing billing invoices. Most are doing a lot of things that do not involve human interaction. There are no "users."

>>4. If I understood your intent I'd likely still disagree. But based
>>on what I think you are saying ... no. I can build a view to do
>>whatever I wish given the tools available.

>
> Perhaps you can eventually make the RDBMS tool do what you want it to do.

Everything except my cat and politicians.

> I
> can use Word instead of InDesign to lay out a poster (it's that hammer/nail
> thing) I'm looking for improvements in software development and
> maintainability of database applications and current RDBMS tools seem to be
> one roadblock, from my perspective, to significant improvements.

I can not imagine how. I think that it is your lack of actual knowledge of these products standing in the way.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Thu Feb 03 2005 - 08:45:27 CST