Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: dbdebunk 'Quote of Week' comment

Re: dbdebunk 'Quote of Week' comment

From: David Cressey <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:08:19 GMT
Message-ID: <nrTPe.2929$FW1.635@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1125094727.382438.278800_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> dawn wrote:
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
> > >
> > > Another difference between keys and pointers is that
> > > keys are content-addressible, while pointers are
> > > location-addressible.
> >
> > and there have been several prior discussions on pointers that I think
> > got most of us to the point of understanding that the pointers that the
> > relational model were eliminating were related to memory locations.
> > When talking about data that serve as references to other data at the
> > logical level, there is nothing in the relational model that prohibits
> > or even discourages such.
>
> 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".
>
>

Agreed. Received on Sat Aug 27 2005 - 01:08:19 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US