Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: MV Keys

Re: MV Keys

From: Jon Heggland <heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:10:53 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.1e710d32cc86fa77989770@news.ntnu.no>


In article <1141260473.796686.131530_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, marshall.spight_at_gmail.com says...
> To my current way of thinking, there are only the two compound types:
> list and set. There are certainly other ways of thinking, involving
> perhaps bags or whatever (or even objects :-). And note that those
> two are not minimal, insofar as lists can be implemented quite
> soundly (but not conveniently) with sets, and sets can be
> implemented quite conveniently (but not soundly) with lists.

So it is essentially an arbitrary decision? Why make it, then?

> This is why I predict that, if we were given NFNF as an
> option, we'd find that the sweet spot would be close to,
> but not right at, fully 1NF. (Assuming availability of
> join. If you don't have join, you can't easily recompose
> decomposed relations.)

This is exactly what Date has said for a long time, in his work on RVAs.

-- 
Jon
Received on Thu Mar 02 2006 - 07:10:53 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US