Re: Advice on SQL and records

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:33:05 +0100, Paul <paul_at_test.com> wrote:

>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

     It does. A row by definition must be unique in a table. There is a lot of the RM that depends on that.

>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.

     Better to appreciate the difference by using the correct terminology.

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

     It does not. "record" does though. Example: ASCII character RS (Record Separator).

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

     But how are we going to determine the difference between you and people who do not have a clue about the RM? I assume that there is a difference.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Mon Aug 22 2005 - 23:00:27 CEST