Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
Date: 17 Jun 2005 08:12:26 -0700
> You propose to implelent it at the user interface level
> but I would prefer to have more support from the database. For example,
> the database should know about alternative paths, which are represented
> in a way different from explicit joins. One approach consists in
> specifying an intermediate table in the path. In this case the qurey
> might look as follows:
> get all houses related to 'Smith' via HouseEnsurance
> Nice format, is not it? Would not you like to have such a facility?
> So the question is do we really need to have such a freedom which allows
> us (makes it easy) to produce meaningless results?
We certainly need not to throw out certain queries just because we don't see today how they're useful. (Your use of the word "meaningless" is incorrect; all RM queries are meaningful, you just might not need that particular meaning at this time.)
Relationships are facts.
Marshall Received on Fri Jun 17 2005 - 17:12:26 CEST