Re: Lucid statement of the MV vs RM position?

"Jon Heggland" <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:e3puku$msr$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> >> I don't dispute that; please pay attention. I'm saying that SUMMARIZE
is
> >> not an aggregate operator; in particular, it is not SUM. SUMMARIZE
> >> produces a relation; SUM produces a number. Is your point that you
> >> actually want to use the same name for these two operations? Why?
> >
> > I don't understand why an aggregate operator could not produce a
relation.
>
> I didn't say it couldn't. In fact, I have mentioned at least one that
> does. SUM does not, however. SUM is iterated addition; addition does not
> apply to relations.
> --
> Jon

I'm trying to pay attention, but it isn't doing any good.

At first you said that SUMMARIZE is not an aggregate operator. Then you say it produces a relation. Did you not intend to imply that the fact that it produces a relation was relevant to its not being an aggregate operator? Received on Tue May 09 2006 - 20:54:48 CEST