Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:43:19 -0500
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> What's not clear to me is whether or not the concept of "assignment" is
>> inherently an imperative concept, and not reducible to purely
>> declarative expression. I lean towards the view that assignment is
>> inherently imperative.
> In case you haven't seen it, here's a link to a widely-regarded, maybe
> even classic textbook:
Maybe you should re-read it. In Chapter 3 the substitution model is abandoned in favor of the environment model for obvious reasons.
> see "The Costs of Introducing Assignment". The authors distinguish
> 'substitution model' as being a property of functional languages. I think
> the A-algebra (algebras typically involve the substitution model, what
> many of us were taught in grade school, if I've got it right) and with an
> equality operator are among what they might call the functional languages.
> I'd also say most people start with a schema that constrains the possible
> assignment variables/pointers (eg., by declaring the allowable relvar or
> table names in advance) and never consider the algebraic implications.
> This puts the systems they make on logical quicksand. For example, there
> are two kinds of constraints for any relation, implicit and explicit. If
> the algebra or equivalent is ignored, certain implicit constraints are
> ignored too, such as the projection identities (eg., Heath) and heading
> constraints, in other words, logical independence. In most application
> languages, you can't map or interpret a sin
> gle pointer to a set of algebraic symbols, but single algebraic
> expressions can be substituted for elements in the set of all possible
> language variables/pointers. I'd say when designing a schema it is
> logically safer to express the design constraints algebraically (with
> shorthands of course), then pick among the algebraic symbols that one
> prefers to interpret as variables/pointers. In a functional language, one
> needn't bother with this choice, that language will choose variables that
> satisfy the equations and we might not even need to know the definitions,
> eg., 'names', of all of them. In this sense, I'd say functional languages
> are at a 'higher-level' of abstraction and so too the A-algebra even
> though I'd guess many programmers would imagine it is somehow a
> 'lower-level' of detail.
> Beyond predictability, an algebra or calculus starting point may not
> matter to the average developer but it is crucial in the design of a dbms
> imlementation which must nearly optimize for practical execution times,
> eg., deciding whether an index can check a key constraint. Without that
> starting point, one is only guessing whether optimizations are logically
> sound and consistent.
Received on Mon Jan 05 2009 - 22:43:19 CST