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: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

From: Tony Andrews <andrewst_at_onetel.com>
Date: 25 Apr 2006 02:01:27 -0700
Message-ID: <1145955684.977352.49350@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


dawn wrote:
> Tony Andrews wrote:
> > Why would the query language have to understand lists?
>
> To make things easier (less expensive) for users (developers and
> end-users)

Well, if lists are sufficiently useful there is no reason why support for the list type and its operators should not come pre-built with the DBMS - just as useful types like DATE already do. If no commecial DBMSs currently do, perhaps that means most people don't have a need for them. Some DBMSs (e.g. Oracle) do support arrays as columns.

> > Lists are just one of a squillion
> > UDTs that could be defined, and surely you don't expect the DBMSs
> > built-in query language to "understand" them all?
>
> Nope, just lists, lists of lists (2D arrays), sets, and scalars. --dawn

Why not lists of lists of lists (3D arrays), lists of sets, and so on? Received on Tue Apr 25 2006 - 04:01:27 CDT

Original text of this message

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