Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
Date: 3 Jun 2006 14:50:03 -0700
J M Davitt wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > <<I am not certain I agree with that last sentence.>>Can you ellaborate
> > on that? What
> > do you have in mind?
> > <<That's a different issue.>>You really think so? I would argue that
> > it is too closely related to to be ignored.
> > <<However, that does not change the degree of a table and
> > does not change the fact that the degree is a direct measure of the
> > dimensions.>> Yes. So. I have never denied that. This is why I
> > made a distinction between SQL tables as they are implemented and SQL
> > tables as they should be represented. Do you have any idea onto how an
> > in memory SQL table footprint looks like on current SQL DBMS?
> Clarification please: are you saying that direct image implementations
> are two dimensional because all the columns are adjacent to each other
> in a row? (If so, you're writing a very different language than the
> readers of your posts are reading.)
<<Clarification please: are you saying that direct image
are two dimensional because all the columns are adjacent to each other in a row? (If so, you're writing a very different language than the readers of your posts are reading.) >>
Not only and the fact that they are adjacent is not really the issue but this description seems closer to what I mean. Thank you very much for helping a better formulation of the issue. (I may have troubles expressing the concept). This thread seems to be taking off after all. What is your insight on that.? Can OO in-memory mechanisms be helpful on that matter? Most people here seem to believe the opposite. Received on Sat Jun 03 2006 - 23:50:03 CEST