Re: Multiplicity, Change and MV

> > > X: Mine [schema] shows around 265 [tables] and it's growing.
.

> > Neo: Then why is it you haven't posted any sensical/practical/verifiable solutions to the various problems that I assert are impractical with RMDBs? (It seems you would have to be quite skilled with RMDBs to deal with such large schemas ...)
.

> X: I don't use colored marker and paper for changing the schema. I use a database.

How does your preference for not using colored markers explain your inability to post any sensical/practical/verifiable solutions to the various problems that I assert are impractical with RMDBs?

>>>>> X: I don't know your definition of schema. I have searched Codd's 1970 ACM paper and found 0 occurences of this word. I have searched Codd's 1979 ACM paper and found 1 occurence of schemata and 1 occurence of schema. In this RM/T paper some operators are defined for dealing with these schema/schemata.
.

>>>> Neo: ... overall db structure that allows one to store data for a particular application... When printed out ... If there is a more appropriate term, please advise.
.

>>> X: Diagram ? Drawing ?
.

>> Neo: schema seems more appropriate as it conveys that concept of detailed structure more accurately. How do you and others who use your schema with 265 tables refer to it?
.

> X: There is a difference between a schema and a drawing of a schema.

Technically you correct. The schema printout/diagram/drawing are representations of the "actual" schema, as are the one you get via SQL or inside SQL Server interface. But most people correctly ignore such distinctions as they are usually irrelevant. But I am glad to see you are able to make such fine distinctions as it is a sign of a great mind. Received on Fri Apr 14 2006 - 20:42:46 CEST