Re: Advice on SQL and records
From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:57:07 +0100
Message-ID: <430a07fd$0$97097$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:57:07 +0100
Message-ID: <430a07fd$0$97097$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>
Eric Junkermann wrote:
>> You could argue that "record" is a better term because "row" has
>> implications of physical rather than logical structure.
>
> And why does "row" have implications of physical rather than logical
> structure?
To me it suggests a collection of things in order, arranged horizontally. Whereas the attributes of a SQL row shouldn't have an order. And it's only a convention that they start at the top and go downwards: we could just as easily visualise the "rows" of a table going from left to right.]
So "record" describes what it's purpose is; "row" describes how it looks.
Paul. Received on Mon Aug 22 2005 - 18:57:07 CEST