Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Alfredo Novoa <>
Date: 4 Jun 2006 06:34:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Cimode ha escrito:

> << This does not make any sense, the dimension of a relvar is the
> number
> of attributes.>>Absolutely. but SQL table implementations are not
> relvar, just a possible representation of a relvar.

This does not make any sense.

> Commonly
> implemented SQL DBMS Tables are bidimensional.

A SQL table with three attributes is always three dimensional independently of how it is implemented. If you can not understand this then it does not make sense to continue the discussion.

It does not make any sense to talk about the dimensionality of the hidden internal representation.

> << The only way to do this is to force all logical tables to have two
> attributes.>>Why is that? What sources makes you believe that?
> (Curious about that assertion) Are you refering to Transrelational
> Model?

Of course not.

> <<I suppose that you know how to represent a cube with a table.>> It is
> an analogy used for communication's sake. You misread and
> misunderstood my comment. I said that a face of a cube is
> bidimensional and is a comparable to what a SQL Table is to a relvar.

Your comparation is completely nonsensical.

> <<Are you suggesting that the memory is less physical than the
> disk?>>Interesting question but the answer is obviously no.

Indeed but your previous post seems to suggest the contrary.

> The
> argument here is about getting better independence *progressively*
> through thinking as to how in-memory representation of relvar could be
> more truthful to what a relvar .

Another completely incoherent paragraph.

> The question is whether OO in-memory
> mechanisms could support such effort. And how?

The answer is evident to me: OO has nothing to offer. Both things are completely unrelated.

  Alfredo Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 15:34:54 CEST

Original text of this message