Re: Define "flatten database" ?

"David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote:

>"Mark Johnson" <102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:hjd1021r1i12pggg356d78t16f2g2a7rb7_at_4ax.com...
>> "David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote:

>> If it both solves and causes problems, so too. Of that,
>> the use of self-referential tables is pretty much the example of the
>> moment,

>The use of self referential tables is explicitly not ruled out in the 1970
>paper. and such use of Connect By, or similar.

I really don't have a problem with these self-referential tables, either, myself. But they may present problems of their own, even while solving problems that the database, inspired by the RM perhaps, otherwise would make it far more difficult to accomplish without them.

As I said, there's a reason why Oracle included a Connect By, and related. Many people use it. But I also do try to see the other side. They might suggest that reconstructing such implicit paths in this way could prove expensive, time-consuming, prohibitive, just as one complaint. I'm sure you are aware of them.

>I don't wish to get involved in the religious wars over the use of "Connect
>by". I clearly recognize it as an Oracle specific construct. But I don't
>hesitate to use it whenever I think it convenient. The nested set model is
>also very clever, and very useful. I don't hesitate to use it when I think
>it's convenient.
Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 05:44:36 CET