Re: Database design
From: Marshall Spight <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 21 Feb 2006 19:43:47 -0800
Message-ID: <1140579827.640722.242460_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> This whole 'flat' debate is nonsense too. Write a database down in its
> mathematical form, devoid of tables, and tell me how on earth it can be
> flat (which semantically means two-dimensional of course), deep, fat,
> thin, whatever. If you mean it doesn't support composite types say
> that. If you mean it contains no explicit links, say that. Calling it
> flat is semantically redundant and doesn't aid any real discussion.
Date: 21 Feb 2006 19:43:47 -0800
Message-ID: <1140579827.640722.242460_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
JOG wrote:
>
> This whole 'flat' debate is nonsense too. Write a database down in its
> mathematical form, devoid of tables, and tell me how on earth it can be
> flat (which semantically means two-dimensional of course), deep, fat,
> thin, whatever. If you mean it doesn't support composite types say
> that. If you mean it contains no explicit links, say that. Calling it
> flat is semantically redundant and doesn't aid any real discussion.
Yes, exactly.
Since we are discussing mathematical constructs, we need to define our terms first. So what does "flat" mean exactly? The term is suggestive merely; there is no formal meaning that I am aware of. Mathworld didn't supply any definitions outside of the usual topological ones.
Some possibilities:
Relations are flat because all the air went out of them after they rolled over some glass.
The candidate proposed a flat tax, meaning that all taxes would be expressed in first normal form.
Relations look flat next to Pamela Anderson, but then, *any* mathematical structure would.
Marshall Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 04:43:47 CET