Re: Newbie question on table design.

"Ed Prochak" <edprochak_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178073935.379387.166690_at_h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 9:00 am, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> > "-CELKO-" <jcelko..._at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1177850477.793972.30990_at_y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> [snip]
>
> > > >> "row" and "record" is more a matter of terminology than concept.
<<
> >
> > > I disagree. Rows are not records. A record is defined in the
> > > application program which reads it; a row is defined in the database
> > > schema and not by a program at all. The name of the field is in the
> > > READ or INPUT statements of the application; a row is named in the
> > > database schema. Likewise, the PHYSICAL order of the field names in
> > > the READ statement is vital (READ a,b,c is not the same as READ c, a,
> > > b; but SELECT a,b,c is the same data as SELECT c, a, b.
> >
> > Again, this is simply not true. In the later days of COBOL and file
based
> > applications, record definitions were stored in libraries, and
referenced
> > by COBOL source programs. These record definition libraries eventually
grew
> > into active data dictionaries.
> >
> > You are vastly oversimplifying the historical evolution of data
management.
>
> Simplified, yes. Overly simplified is just your opinion.
>
> There is a significant difference between accessing file records and
> accessing rows. How terminology is used expresses deeper meanings and
> understandings. It is like St Paul's advice that the strong should
> still follow strict rules so as not to mislead those weak in faith.
>
> Here's a final argument: if there really was no difference and the
> transition from records to rows was as gradual as your seem to be
> arguing here, then why did the term rows come into use? There was a
> reason. There is a difference at a very fundamental level.

I am NOT taking the position that the distinction between rows and records is so trivial as to make the newer term superfluous. Received on Wed May 02 2007 - 11:55:23 CEST