Re: Objects and Relations

On Jan 30, 1:13 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:12 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:18 am, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I wish I had a decent general purpose relational language I could prototype this stuff in. Starting in March I hope to be able to put some decent amount of effort into that. SQL is so clunky!
>
> > > So what is a proper relational expression for the string bob?
>
> > #:int, c:char
> > { (0, 'b'), (1, 'o'), (2, 'b') }
>
> > But I would expect a syntactic shortcut so you could just
> > write:
>
> > "bob"
>
> > as is customary in a variety of languages.
>
> Indeed, and hopefully the OP will recognize how similar this is to the
> actual contents of the string object itself. I'd also note that while
> RDBMS are obviously not traditionally setup to handle this sort of
> thing (in terms of physical implementation and optimization, as
> opposed to the underlying theory), there is no reason a programming
> language could not be constructed that represented a string datatype
> as such.

Yes. I note that often when these kinds of comparisons are made, they are implicitly made between a non-thread-safe, non-transactional array, and a rowstore with full transactional semantics.

I can imagine a use for a non-thread-safe, non-transactional relation; this would be a better comparison.

Marshall Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 22:49:29 CET