Re: Principle of Orthogonal Design

On 18 jan, 15:23, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
> > JOG wrote:
> >> Jan Hidders wrote:
> >>> Brian Selzer wrote:
> >>>> This calls into question the idea that it should
> >>>> be possible to determine which relation an inserted tuple is destined for.
> >>> Apologies for being lazy, but could someone explain to me in a
> >>> nutshell why this should be possible at all? At first sight this looks
> >>> like complete nonsense to me.
> >> Well, as far as I gather, being able to determine a unique predicate
> >> for any proposition being inserted into the database is desirable in
> >> order to allow view updates to be more easily be translated to changes
> >> in underlying base relations.
>
> >> I cannot claim to fully understand the reasoning behind this, but view
> >> updating hence appears to have been POOD's underlying motivation.
> >> There is a relatively old draft paper by Date and McGoveran at living
> >> athttp://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622331.htmwhichmight be more
> >> illuminating.
>
> > It mentions the view update problem but doesn't really explain how it
> > is connected.
>
> > Anyway, the stronger POOD that requires that headers are distinct
> > sounds like nonsense to me. Why would R(A, B) be a worse design than
> > R(R_A, R_B)?
>
> > The weaker POOD looks more interesting to me. I even found a published
> > paper about it:
>
> >http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006madrid/papers/512-451.pdf
>
> Unfortunately the link times out.

Hmm, not for me. But to help you out:

http://www.adrem.ua.ac.be/bibrem/pubs/pood.pdf

• Jan Hidders