Re: Concurrency in an RDB

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:34:16 GMT
Message-ID: <YWGkh.37909$cz.557861@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

paul c wrote:

> Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> 

>> On 2006-12-27, paul c wrote:
>>
>>> What possible reason would one have to apply relational operators to
>>> strings, at least strings as most humans would read or write them?
>>
>> I can't see any. But I also read this as a shortcoming of the
>> relational model.
>>
>> We do have a number of operations on strings and also full-fledged
>> running prose which are practically important, but which haven't yet
>> been neatly included in the relational model of data. Say, the
>> equivalence between a low level string-of-characters representation,
>> and a fully parsed, hierarchical, more annotated, "more semantic" one.
>> Apparently there's something about text and/or strings which isn't
>> straightforwardly amenable to relational treatment.

Yeah, there is something: it's called ignorance.

>> Given the current, practical importance of both running text and the
>> RM, I wonder why a) there haven't been any genuine attempts at
>> treating strings, text and language in general in relational terms, or
>> b) why the RM folks won't confess it can't be done, given the current
>> state of knowledge, thereby acknowledging that there is data that just
>> isn't currently amenable to relational treatment.

What a fucking idiot.

Paul, was it really necessary to quote that nonsense? If you are going to repeat nonsense, please, point out in plain terms just how nonsensical it is.

> I enjoyed the recent strings attributed to that genius Rabbie Burns. > Where was the data? Received on Wed Dec 27 2006 - 21:34:16 CST