Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
Date: 15 Jun 2006 05:33:28 -0700
Jay Dee wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > I know BB won't probably read this thread as he probably used his
> > magical *twit filter* to discard my post but I want to point out
> > the issue of his misunderstanding and bad faith on this thread.
> > The object of the argument was that I considered physical
> > representation of SQL table on all current implementation as purely
> > bidimensional or tridimensional depending on the adressing scheme used
> > at physical level of RAM implementation. Mister BB has advocated
> > the opposite stating that physical implementation are multidimensional
> > and that stated that RAM adresses are linear.
> Dimension, when discussing databases and memory, is two
> different words.
Yes. Abolutely I am aware of that. Dimension at logical level is not the same as dimension at mathematical level we agree on that. I am exclusively refering at the second to consider physical aspects of memory. That is why debate at logical level is totally irrelevant. I refer to N dimension as being refered by an N system of coordinates.
> Suggesting that the memory model of the machine on which
> a system is implemented affects the arity of the data in
> a database indicates confusion of the different meanings
> the word has.
I believe there's confusion but not where you think. I have clearly defined dimension as not being refering to logical definition. We are *exclusively* at physical level.
Reread the thread please. I state that the memory model that regulates the RAM system at physical level limits the implementation of multidimensionality as is defined at logical level. I have not said that it would redefine the muldimensionality at logical level, that would be absurd. We all know a relvar is a purely multidimensional variable. But I stated and proved the current physical implementation do not allow to represent that multidimensionality.... Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 14:33:28 CEST