Re: What databases have taught me

From: Bruno Desthuilliers <onurb_at_xiludom.gro>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:36:46 +0200
Message-ID: <449c26af$0$284$>

Marshall wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>>>Yes, but SQL DBMSs are not R DBMSs.
>>And *this*  was exactly the answer I was expecting !-)

> 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
> concerns.

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>

Sorry, nitpicking here - don't waste your time answering to this.

> In *theory* you just use the transitive closure operation. Does
> this help you solve your practical problem today? Sorry, no.

Too bad.

> (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

Original text of this message