Re: The horse race

"Mark Johnson" <102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message news:n6qlv15vq5kcpr0gr2i3b9rmtloltk0v97_at_4ax.com...
> Bob Hairgrove <invalid_at_bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:37:04 -0800, Mark Johnson
> ><102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >>If one were to bet on the horses, a database could be used to store
> >>such information, quantitative, even vague and cryptic observations of
> >>use only to the diarist, if you will.
>
> >>Perhaps one could turn to the RM. One might list the horses by stable.
> >>One might list the horse, per race, and gate. The gate becomes merely
> >>an attribute for that relation.
>
> >>But how far does one carry that? Horses are money-winners. Some win
> >>more, some less. And they can be ranked. Their ranking is yet another
> >>attribute, in another relation. At what point can one say that the
> >>relation is sorted, which is a violation of the RM, as I understand
> >>it?
>
> >What do you mean by "how far does one carry that"? All your examples
> >are typical of cursors, not relations. Every time you say "list",
> >think "cursor". Cursors are always sorted, but relations are not.
>
> No that's a relation. In describing a race, the attributes might
> include, gate. The gates are ordered.

The gates aren't really ordered. The locations of the gates are ordered, and the numbers painted on the gates are ordered, but the gates themselves are not ordered. Received on Tue Feb 21 2006 - 15:14:38 CET