Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:37:01 GMT
Message-ID: <NDy%f.59458$VV4.1097541_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1144686256.966117.179590_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>Change bothers me. Especially in database schema, and specifically when
>>>we want to accomodate change in the cardinalities of the relationships
>>>we are modelling.
>>
>>What schema ?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:37:01 GMT
Message-ID: <NDy%f.59458$VV4.1097541_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
> "x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message news:e1gfct$7l6$1_at_emma.aioe.org... >
>>"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1144686256.966117.179590_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>Change bothers me. Especially in database schema, and specifically when
>>>we want to accomodate change in the cardinalities of the relationships
>>>we are modelling.
>>
>>What schema ?
<snip>
> Ok, I'm gonna take a stab at this from a 'classic MV' perspecitve, ala Pick.
Why would anyone bother with that POS. We established three or four
years ago that PICK is dangerously unstable. Simple changes in the
schema alter the meaning of existing queries with nothing to indicate or
warn about the change.
Only a complete idiot would use that mess.