Re: MV Keys

From: Jon Heggland <heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:27:25 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.1e7754328c7e8f9e98978d_at_news.ntnu.no>


In article <1141659383.465669.99320_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, marshall.spight_at_gmail.com says...
> > I agree. Perhaps Marshall meant that if you have RVAs, you don't really
> > need tuple attributes, because you can "simulate" them using a RVA with
> > cardinality one (just like you can "simulate" a list using a
> > relation)---not that a tuple is a special kind of relation?
>
> But isn't a tuple a subtype of a relation?

Not according to the definitions I prefer. I feel uncomfortable with the circularity this would entail: That a relation is a set of relations(?).

> What definition of subtype
> would you care to use? Consisder the defintion of a relation:
> doesn't a tuple qualify?

That depends on which definition you consider "the" definition. I like Date's: A relation consists of a heading (a set of attribute name / domain pairs), and a body, which is a set of tuples conforming to the heading. A tuple is a set of attribute name / domain / value triplets.

As for subtypes, I'm undecided. I like the TTM subtype definition (subset; specialisation by constraint) because it is clean, precise and sound---but it seems a bit useless in practise. :)

> > The operators
> > of the respective type kinds are also rather different, of course.
>
> Can you be more specific? What different operators are there?

(Note that I'm talking about a specific DBMS here; I don't claim this is universal truth.)

Received on Tue Mar 07 2006 - 08:27:25 CET

Original text of this message