Re: Do we always have to update or insert? Why can't we just relate?

On 17 Oct 2005 16:28:22 -0700, "JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:

>Given two sets {2, 3, 4} and {3, 4, 5}, if I wanted to perform a union
>upon them, I would expect to get the result {2, 3, 4, 5} and not an
>error message stating the 3 and 4 existed in both. Is this analagous to
>an insert? If this is the case, with an insert viewed as the union of
>the relation's existing set of elements with specified insert set
>(which just contains a single element), then from a purely theoretical
>standpoint an error message does seem suprising.

     Good point on theory, but the inserts are one-at-a-time, so the analogy is not strong.

     My preference is that each action that I choose to do gets an appropriate response. If I am adding one row to a table, then another, then another, that is three actions, each with their own response. If my action is performing the union of two sets, then I expect the result you give above.

     I can see that this is YMMV.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Tue Oct 18 2005 - 01:39:42 CEST