Re: attribute name conflicts
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:48:47 GMT
Message-ID: <P2Agi.68285$NV3.22266_at_pd7urf2no>
>
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense, but I once saw a database where lots of
> different entities had a column with the name "NAME". (I am not making this
> up). NAME might refer to a City's name in one context, and airline's name
> in another context, and an airport's name in a third context.
> These columns all had the same datatype and precision (CHAR(20)) so this
> may not be a case of what you are describing.
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:48:47 GMT
Message-ID: <P2Agi.68285$NV3.22266_at_pd7urf2no>
David Cressey wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
...
>>Oops, sorry about that, I meant to ask: Does it ever make sense within a >>given appl'n to have two different relations that use the same attribute >>name but with different types? >> >>p
>
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense, but I once saw a database where lots of
> different entities had a column with the name "NAME". (I am not making this
> up). NAME might refer to a City's name in one context, and airline's name
> in another context, and an airport's name in a third context.
> These columns all had the same datatype and precision (CHAR(20)) so this
> may not be a case of what you are describing.
I have too, along with the name "ID", especially in non-relational, or should I say non-sql db's.
This reminds me that I've seen the so-called "user types" of some sql products criticized because they weren't anything more than aliases, but I sometimes wonder if any products actually allow you to name a type (if not its values and operators) and say also that for entry purposes it is of type CHAR{20} but that for identity purposes, eg., when joining, it is of the named type, eg., "CITYNAME".
p Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 22:48:47 CEST