Re: Advice on SQL and records

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:33:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4309d82b$0$97095$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>

David Cressey wrote:
> Ooops! I didn't get it until I read the question again. Ignore my earlier
> response The correct answer is that none of the SQL tables contain any
> records. SQL tables contain rows rather than records.

I don't really understand this obsession with calling them rows rather than records. A row records a fact, so does it really matter it we call it a record? I realise that it is maybe to distinguish between COBOL-style row-by-row processing as opposed to set-based processing, but I don't really see it as that important. You can still call them both records but appreciate the difference.

You could argue that "record" is a better term because "row" has implications of physical rather than logical structure.

I might start calling SQL rows "records" all the time now, just to annoy the language purists! :)

Paul. Received on Mon Aug 22 2005 - 08:33:05 CDT