Re: storing survey answers of different data types
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:17:30 -0300
Message-ID: <49f12f4c$0$5499$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Am I right in saying that there is no standard structure for the
> system catalog? (Not that that is really germane in a theory newsgroup)
>
> Of course, you are right.
>
> Which unfortunately means that my question is now going to have to be
> asked as a series of problems.
>
> (I've just snipped such a problem from this post, because my reply
> to Gene in this thread ended up being a more succinct description of it).
>
> Cheers,
> Joe
Received on Fri Apr 24 2009 - 05:17:30 CEST
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:17:30 -0300
Message-ID: <49f12f4c$0$5499$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Joe Thurbon wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:17:57 +1000, Bob Badour
> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Joe Thurbon wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:32:22 +1000, Bob Badour >>> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>>> My name is Bob, I have property in Canada, my house is 114 years old. >>>> {name=Bob,place=Canada,age=114) >>>> >>>> Different questionnaires. Different tables. A column for each >>>> question. A row for each respondent. All described neatly in the >>>> system catalog. >>> >>> My name is Joe, I have property in Australia, my house if 40 years old. >>> Just wondering, if one of the requirements for a system included >>> something like 'Be able to list all questionnaires', would >>> you still consider one-table-per-questionairre a reasonable design? >> >> Absolutely. It's a simple query from the system catalog.
>
> Am I right in saying that there is no standard structure for the
> system catalog? (Not that that is really germane in a theory newsgroup)
I don't know. I don't bother with the SQL standard much. To a certain extent, one might expect the system catalog to reflect the implementation of the dbms making each implementation dependent.
>>> I think that there is a more abstract question trying to get out >>> of my head. Maybe it's: 'When relations become things that >>> have facts asserted about them, should one stop treating them as >>> relations, and normalise further?" (where normalise is almost certainly >>> the wrong word, but I'm not sure what the right one is.) >> >> You must not be phrasing that well. All interesting relations have >> facts asserted about them. Degree. Cardinality. Functional >> dependencies. etc.
>
> Of course, you are right.
>
> Which unfortunately means that my question is now going to have to be
> asked as a series of problems.
>
> (I've just snipped such a problem from this post, because my reply
> to Gene in this thread ended up being a more succinct description of it).
>
> Cheers,
> Joe
Received on Fri Apr 24 2009 - 05:17:30 CEST