Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate& Darwin? [M.Gittens]
From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:18:41 +0100
Message-ID: <42a6c601$0$32624$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
>
> they'll get a bigger shock when the business goes under. if 90% of
> salaries are unknown, serves them right. they have bigger problems than
> the database.
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:18:41 +0100
Message-ID: <42a6c601$0$32624$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
paul c wrote:
>>> Hear, hear! It totally escapes me how could somebody invent putting
>>> nonumeric value ("not salaried") into numeric column. For all reporting
>>> purposes unknown salary is salary equal to 0.
>>
>> I disagree; suppose 90% of salaries are unknown. Someone does a quick
>> query to get the total estimated salary bill, not realising this. They
>> are going to get a shock when the real thing comes through!
>> ...
>
> they'll get a bigger shock when the business goes under. if 90% of
> salaries are unknown, serves them right. they have bigger problems than
> the database.
heh, OK, pedagogical example, but the principle still stands. Maybe someone else was working on the database and accidently wiped some out or something, and no one did a reality check. Even if it was only 10% unknown it could be disastrous.
Paul. Received on Wed Jun 08 2005 - 12:18:41 CEST