Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"

Dawn wrote:
> JOG wrote
> > I still await a
> > post without any agenda, or baiting, or getting drawn into business
> > politics -

> OK, it sounds like database theory is a profession that might want to
> have no users or at least users with no requirements, right? ;-) I

More baiting. The 'harlequin' syndrome?

> could use some of those myself. There is that joke about the librarian
> who said that it was a wonderful day for the library because there were
> only two books checked out and they were both due today. Maybe we
> could write a similar joke about a database theorist? Just wondering
> if I'm getting the picture.

It doesn't look like you are. I would like to see posts from you without any agenda, or baiting, or getting drawn into business anecdotes. Should I not be holding my breath?

> > perhaps a theoretical exploration of grouping and ungrouping
> > aggregates? Regards, Jim.
> Yes, I've been reading that and am interested. But you might
> understand if I tell you that since I have done my share of grouping
> and ungrouping (nesting and unnesting) of production data and I can
> recall many issues that I have encountered (unnest multiple multivalues
> in a relation and then sum another attribute, for example), I have an
> understanding of my requirements in this regard. However, I have no
> idea how to meet these requirements using only set-based queries
> against a single row-and-column-representation of the available data.

Then find out. And if it is not possible, extend what is currently there to see if could be possible.

> This is an aside, and I might be misunderstanding, but when I ask
> questions about such things, I'm told that SQL isn't intended for such
> queries,

intended? Who knows. Insufficient. very possibly.

> so you need to use a "reporting tool" which, funny thing, does
> not use exclusively set-based queries in its underbelly (which is the
> reason it can do the job).

I don't see why you can't do MV without sets, and with the use of Codd's insights and using traditional predicate logic. It might have negative consequences, it might be really good. I don't know, I haven't investigated it enough. Point is not to hand wave, and actually investigate scientifically (at least as far as a database theory forum is concerned).

> So I think I need to just listen in on that
> discussion for now.
>
> > > I also am not sure whether sometimes when a person writes "theory" they
> > > are referring only to the mathematics portion of the rules. For
> > > example, are "produce a nightly backup to disk" and "have a real-time
> > > operational database that is a duplicate of the OLTP database" possible
> > > statements in a "database theory" or not? Why or why not?
>
> > > Thanks for the discussion on this. --dawn

No problem. Jim.

>
> > > > --
> > > > Kenneth Downs
> > > > Secure Data Software, Inc.
> > > > (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)
Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 15:11:50 CET