Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: Jan Hidders <>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 08:21:38 -0700
Message-ID: <>

dawn wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
> > dawn wrote:.
> > >
> > > So, let me know if the IP is no longer applicable and where there are
> > > any implementations of this new approach.
> >
> > Come on, Dawn, this has already been discussed to death in this
> > newsgroup. The IP only say that all the information should be
> > represented in relation, what is in the columns of those relations it
> > does not speak about, so there could be very well lists there as far as
> > the IP is concerned.
> And lists as attribute values is implemented by whom, where?

Er, Dawn, quick follow-up questions are not going to hide the fact that you yet again managed to misunderstand the exact meaning of one of the most fundamental principles of the relational model.

> If you
> are saying that every site can implement it, including making any
> relevant changes to the query language, has anyone done that?

Yes. User-defined types (UDTs) were already added in SQL:1999. See for example on

under the, for you perhaps, intriguing title: "Great News, The Relational Model is Dead"

UDTs (or something similar) are possible in Sybase, DB2, Oracle, SQL server, PostgreSQL and probably more I cannot think of right now. Come to think of it, a list-of-something datatype can of course also be defined easily in Alphora's Dataphor.

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Mon Apr 24 2006 - 17:21:38 CEST

Original text of this message