Re: Define "flatten database" ?

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:25:01 GMT
Message-ID: <NUYLf.532$v34.106_at_trndny02>

"Mark Johnson" <> wrote in

> Perhaps I might ask a related question. Do you believe that a table
> corresponds, but perhaps only weakly, or even inconsistently, to a
> "relation" as understood in the set theory of the RM, or do you
> believe it is fair to call the database table a "relation", without
> much qualification?

It seems to me, after years of doing both, that actually designing, building and populating databases is considerably simpler than talking about the same thing in c.d.t.

In practice, I had no problem talking about SQL tables and relations as if they were essentially the same thing. Please, lurkers, DON'T teach me the difference between a bag and a set. I already know.

In here, people are quite a bit more picky about terminology, perhaps appropriately so. Sloppy terminology probably results in sloppy theory.

But here's my current response: define a "relational table" as the representation of a relation in a relational database. Describe an "SQL table" as an approximation to a relational table. Move on from there. Received on Sat Feb 25 2006 - 14:25:01 CET

Original text of this message