Re: Why all the max length constraints?

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1148926707.349452.88940_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Erwin wrote:
> > "logical variaibility"
> >
> > Dawn,
> >
> > No matter how you toss or turn it, if you design/define a database you
> > *WILL HAVE TO* answer the "range" question for each and every
> > individual attribute in your database.

> This is surely not the case. If relations (sets/functions) were
> defined to a DBMS with max lengths on an item in that set, and the DBMS
> does not "think in terms of attributes" (perhaps because it uses
> attribute schema information as descriptive, rather than prescriptive)
> then there would be no need (or even ability) to constrain the max
> length of each individual attribute.

Are strings conceptual or implementation ? If they are implementation, you should have not used them as a type but as an internal representation.

> > ? Is a first name consisting of 1234 tokens a possible first name for
> > a person ?

> For this one, I would prefer to not to constrain, but to notify of
> exceptional name lengths, but I do understand people putting such a
> constraint on as it makes some thing easier (while possibly upsetting
> some customers).

When you'll go to get your driver licence, or whatever, I think they are not going to give you one custom made specially for you, your highestness, unless you own them.
You can name yourself in any way you like it, but people will call you in their own ways whether you like it or not. Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 10:02:48 CEST