Re: atomic
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:39:37 -0000
Message-ID: <p4adncRihdjq2a3anZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d_at_pipex.net>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:472fd42f$0$14860$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> paul c wrote:
>> I think it would have 20!
>
> r1:
>
> Name Car
> ----------- ------------
> {bill} {car1,car2,car4}
> {john,fred} {car3}
>
>
> r2:
>
> Car Colour
> ---------------- ---------
> {car1,car3,car4} {red}
> {car2} {green}
>
>
> r1 join ( r2 rename Car as Vehicle ):
>
> Name Car Vehicle Colour
> ------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------------
> {bill} {car1,car2,car4) {car1,car3,car4} {red}
> {bill} {car1,car2,car4) {car2} {green}
> {john,fred} {car3} {car1,car3,car4} {red}
> {john,fred} {car3} {car2} {green}
>
> I count 4 rows.
I have been on the fence about RVAs for years. I can see why Date and
others (including you guys) want to talk about them for the purpose of
understanding where the theory takes you. But this little exchange shows me
that I never want to see RVAs implemented in any product. (I am not talking
about paul's confusion about the relations in question.)
I don't care if there is a problem that can be solved only with RVAs, the
misery they would invite just wouldn't be worth it. The old joke says if we
Roy Received on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 11:39:37 CET