Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 4 Jun 2006 07:45:05 -0700
Message-ID: <1149432305.383531.322080@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Alfredo Novoa,
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.

It does not make any sense because you are confusing R-Table/SQL table and their punctual in-memory representation at runtime.

 //A SQL table with three attributes is always three dimensional  independently of how it is implemented.//

At logical level yes but not at physical level. You advance a strong argument without anything to back it up Prove it.  What is the in-memory representation of a SQL table at run time?

// If you can not understand this
 then it does not make sense to continue the discussion.// If you can not understand the difference between a relvar and what can be its physical representation then you are probably are right that there is no point you bringing additional confusing comments to this thread that has a clearly defined scope (not logical, spell with me P-H-Y-S-I-C-A-L). Several people have already understood the issue here but you are not one of them.

//<<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.// This is getting boring.

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.// This is getting repetitive but I should clarify that...Do you deny that the body of a relvar represented after a select x, y, z is ran is anything else similar to

            X-AXIS----------------
Y-AXIS           1,2,3
    -                2,4,4
    -                4,4,4
    -                5,5,8

Do you deny that X and Y represent mathematical dimensions? Do you support that the above representation is the relvar itself. If you answered yes to any of the above questions then you are wrong dead wrong.

// The answer is evident to me: OO has nothing to offer. Both things are
 completely unrelated.//
Prove it. If your knowledge of OO mechanisms is as effective as the confusions you are making between logical and physical layers, I doubt you have any credibility onto convincing me of that. Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 09:45:05 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US