Re: Advice on SQL and records

Paul wrote:
> 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.

I see what you mean, but I don't think I agree with your conclusions. The term "record" is closely associated with record-at-a-time processing, so we ought to avoid this term to the same degree that we should avoid that technique, which is to say a *lot*.

I don't agree that we could visualize just as easily horizontally as vertically. Consider the spreadsheet, which works just as well with a horizontal as vertical layout, and yet how many spreadsheets have you seen that use the one format over the other?

You're right that "row" is a less than ideal term, though. The best term I can think of would be "member" from set theory, but I don't think that term would work out too well.

Marshall Received on Mon Aug 22 2005 - 19:51:19 CEST