Re: Advice on SQL and records
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:33:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4309d82b$0$97095$ed2619ec_at_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 - 15:33:05 CEST