Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: sql tables

Re: sql tables

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:21:04 -0300
Message-ID: <470e4d35$0$14835$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>


David Cressey wrote:

> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote in message
> news:EbrPi.13483$Da.2157_at_pd7urf1no...
>

>>(note, I changed the thread subject)
>>
>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>>David Cressey wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>>An SQL DBMS manipulates tables,  not relations or relational variables.
>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>
>>I presume David could just as well have said "an SQL DBMS manipulates
>>SQL tables".  Found (finally) a copy of some draft or other of the SQL
>>standard at http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt .
>>
>>Not sure how this copy might differ from the official ones, but anyway,
>>here's some of what it says in section 4.9 which seems to be about
>>"Concepts":
>>
>>
>>>4.9  Tables
>>>
>>>         A table is a multiset of rows. A row is a nonempty sequence of
>>>         values. Every row of the same table has the same cardinality

>
> and
>
>>>         contains a value of every column of that table. The i-th value

>
> in
>
>>>         every row of a table is a value of the i-th column of that

>
> table.
>
>>>         The row is the smallest unit of data that can be inserted into

>
> a
>
>>>         table and deleted from a table.
>>
>>
>>I'm wondering if there are popular SQL dbms's that follow this.  For
>>example, do any of them let me "insert", say, two "rows" that would be
>>considered the same row if a table were a set of rows rather than a
>>multiset of rows, giving, eg.:
>>
>>TableA:
>>ColumnA
>>1
>>1
>>

>
>
> All of the "major" SQL DBMS products permit storing more than one identical
> row in a table. However, they provide several ways the database manager can
> protect the database from that event. The simplest is to declare a primary
> key for the table. This will also, however, protect against inserting two
> rows that differ, but have identical primary key values. Most often, that
> coincides with the intent of the manager.
>
>
>>Also wondering about "i-th" values in rows.  Does the above also mean that
>>
>>TableB:
>>ColumnA ColumnB
>>1       2
>>
>>is not equal to
>>
>>TableC:
>>ColumnB ColumnA
>>2       1
>>
>>(all other things being equal)?

>
>
> The question is moot. Table B and Table C have different headers, even
> though they contain the same columns. a row with values {2, 1} inserted
> into TableB would be different from the row that's already there.
>
> I'm not nearly as critical of SQL as the relational apologists in this
> forum. However, I think it's a weakness of SQL that it can't seem to make
> up its mind whether to use position or name as way of connecting values in a
> list to their "location". I see this confusion all over the language, and
> I think it's possible to do better. I am expecting relational apologists to
> point out specific languages that actually do better.

No apologies necessary. Received on Thu Oct 11 2007 - 11:21:04 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US