Re: cdt glossary - TABLE
From: Marshall Spight <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2005 19:13:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1121048036.841868.12580_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> I thought the whole idea of the relational model was to abstract away
> from physical things like the order of the columns, which isn't relevant
> to data management.
Date: 10 Jul 2005 19:13:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1121048036.841868.12580_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Paul wrote:
>
> I thought the whole idea of the relational model was to abstract away
> from physical things like the order of the columns, which isn't relevant
> to data management.
It's a minor point, but note that nothing says that the notation we use for column order has to be reflected in the implementation. We could design a relational language where the attributes were designated by order, and this might have nothing whatsoever to do with how the relation was represented in memory.
Marshall Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 04:13:56 CEST