Re: What databases have taught me
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:36:46 +0200
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>>Yes, but SQL DBMSs are not R DBMSs. >> >><trolling> >>And *this* was exactly the answer I was expecting !-) >></trolling>
> Something that is often a source of misunderstanding in crossposted
> threads is that comp.databases.theory is a *theory* newsgroup,
I'm aware of this - that's why I added a troll warning and a smiley.
> and we do not limit ourselves, (or sometimes, even concern ourselves)
> with what products are out there today. Our concern is for theory,
> and for what is possible. This is not to deny the existence of
> practical concerns; rather it is to deny the exclusivity of practical
but given that most comp.object readers are primarily concerned with practical stuff, isn't it a bit unfair to argue about the superiority of the relational model over OO when there's no working, usable implementation of the relational model ?-) </trolling-again>
> In *theory* you just use the transitive closure operation. Does
> this help you solve your practical problem today? Sorry, no.
> (However, you may wish to check if the database product
> you use does support some kind of transitive closure operation,
> such as Oracle's CONNECT BY.)
I'd prefer to stick to SQL standard as much as possible. I have a need for solutions that can run on as many SQL DBMS as possible.
-- bruno desthuilliers python -c "print '_at_'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for p in 'onurb_at_xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 19:36:46 CEST