Re: Why all the max length constraints?

Tony D wrote:
> (I'll take these points intentionally out of sequence, in order of
> interest/worth/whatever.)
>
> Dawn wrote :
>
> > I read 'em, but didn't memorize 'em, feel free to point me to a page
> > number that answers my question.
>
> If you aren't internalising anything you've read from them, including
> the basic point upon which one of them rests, why bother reading them ?

I'm very, very intersted in them or I wouldn't shell out either the dollars or the time. A first read at any book does not have me memorizing it, however, and I usually have a lot of questions from anything I read. I still don't know where in the book the answer to my question is (I've looked, but there is no way to google within it ;-) so if you have a page number for me, please pass it along.

> > Maybe it is a reasonable question to ask
>
> Not really.

Could you be more specific on what is not reasonable about the question?

> > and maybe there is a good reasonable response.
>
> I could be mildly provocative and suggest the Principle of Incoherence
> may apply here.

You may suggest that, but it isn't helpful in addressing the question.

> > Maybe you know the good reasonable response and
> > have decided not to offer it and trash me instead,
>
> At time of this writing, my version of something approaching a
> reasonable response is at post number 49 on the Google list. Maybe you
> didn't read that far down ?

I will look for it. Thanks.

> > or maybe you don't know the response either in which case we could both learn
> > something from the thread.
>
> Hm.
>
> > This is SOOOOO frustrating I could scream!
>
> Well then, we have at least one thing in common. As to why, I shall now
> jump backwards and a little out of sequence :
>
> > Thankfully some like David, Marshall, JOG, x, mAsterdam, Jan and many
> > others do try to discuss the topics, but I'm sure they are tiring of
> > having so much noise in these discussions too.
>
> Indeed they do. Jan, Mikito, Bob and increasingly Marshall are offering
> useful information, interesting, meaty topics for discussion and points
> of insight. Sadly, it's sometimes quite hard work to find the nuggets,
> but they are there.
>
> > Why not answer questions, participate in the discussion,
>
> When I feel I have something useful to say, even if it is only to urge
> caution and point to more learned sources then I try to. If my lattice
> chops were up to snuff I'd like to participate in the relational
> lattice discussions, for example. But they aren't, so I don't, and
> simply read instead.

ditto.

> > or ignore the thread instead of this approach?
>
> Generally, ignoring this type of thread is a very worthwhile approach,
> and one I would recommend heartily. This one, however, was so
> impressively dopey, given the widely available material on the topic,
> that I couldn't resist. I will count that as my bad.

Feel free to point me to this widely available material that answers my question.

> > What is your purpose for particiipating in this thread only to try to make this a discussion about me
> > instead of the question I asked?
>
> Someone else seemed to be coming to the same conclusion I came to some
> time ago, and I noted it. As for making things a discussion about you,
> the evidence would suggest you manage that quite successfully for
> yourself.

As I just mentioned in another thread, when the discussion was turned on me, instead of ignoring it I have been trying to explain and will try to stop doing that once I have an understanding of the answer to my question here.

> >> This particular thread is so close to being a troll,
> > hogwash
>
> Actually, it's darn close to being a troll, because (a) source material
> is readily available to answer the question;

One would think someone could just point me to something and be done with it then.

> (b) you claim to have read
> at least one book which would have answered your question already, and

I didn't get that from it, so I will comtinue to look.

> (c) the question was asked in such a way that there are several on the
> list who were bound to answer in a sadly predictable way (surely after
> all this time we're past conflating SQL with the relational model of
> data ?).

I would think so too -- the RM is a theory related to databases and SQL and SQL-DBMS's are implementations which are flawed even if based on or prompted by the work done on relational theory. Is that accurate?

I'm interested in practice as it relates to theory. Sometime features are in SQL-DBMS products because of old theory. 3VL might be an example of that. The state of the RM today might not care whether it is implemented with 2 or 3VL, but that does not mean that historically the RM had nothign to do with the state of the industry today being that many use a 3VL.

> It was the c.d.t. equivalent of waving a red rag at a bull, as
> another poster noted elsewhere.
>

Sometimes I'm aware when I do that, but this time I definitely was not.  I even put a note up front that I hoped would keep those who insist on seeing red rags from commenting. Ugh! --dawn Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 04:11:51 CEST