Re: dbdebunk 'Quote of Week' comment

dawn wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> >
> > I don't use the word "pointer" for such things. If we broaden
> > the term "pointer" that far, it stops meaning much of anything.
> > The appropriately generic term for data that *could* serve
> > as references to other data at the logical level is "data".
>
> That works for me too, but I read what was written at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBMS about multivalue databases and
> pointers and I don't get it. I've heard it before and I think it is
> hogwash, but it keeps coming back up, and we have established in the
> past (or at least I have) that sometimes I'm the one bringing the
> hogwash, so I want to get this straight.
>
> So, is this wikipedia entry correct?

I didn't read the whole thing, but what I did read was crap. I wasn't sure what specific part of the article you're referring to, so I can't directly address whether that specific part was crap. But I bet it was crap.

Wikipedia is highly variable. It may be that in a few years this entry will be a lot better. You could try to improve it yourself, of course, in the spirit of wiki. I confine myself to correcting obvious factual errors, spelling errors, and grammatical errors. I help in my own small way. :-)

> I think it is only suggesting
> that the mv systems navigate using foreign keys (rather than only
> permitting joins and set functions in the logical layer and doing the
> navigation under the covers). So, why do they use the term "pointer"
> for this? Is that page correct the way it is, or should I (or someone)
> change it?

You should do some edits if you feel up to it.

Marshall Received on Sat Aug 27 2005 - 06:41:15 CEST