Re: storing survey answers of different data types

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:48:29 -0300
Message-ID: <49f1d13f$0$5492$>

lawpoop wrote:

> On Apr 24, 6:01 am, paul c <> wrote:

>>Joe Thurbon wrote:
>>>Suffice to say, I was following you until you brought him up. What would
>>>Mott's Clamato man think?
>>I guess that television ad' was from so long ago that most people don't
>>remember it.  An amateur inventor pitches his idea to a Mott's exec,
>>it's a device that attaches to the kitchen faucet to dispense the juice.
>>  The very incisive exec scoffs and asks sarcastically: why stop there?
>>  Why not just fill the central water supplies with clamato juice?  The
>>crackpot replies: "boy, you guys really think big!".  It often seems to
>>me that the db field is so easily stumped by small problems that turn
>>into minor crises, eg., the so-called view updating problem has been
>>lingering for years now, if it is really a problem it effectively means
>>that Codd's model is broken.  I think the Mott's exec would have said if
>>the theory doesn't suit the purpose, change the theory.

> Well, you can get a lot of mileage out of the theory... I think that
> it's not a binary distinction between a model being 'broken' or
> 'unbroken', it's more of a spectrum between things that are easy and
> hard. You can get a lot of mileage out of the RDBMS, and if/when you
> get to a point where things start to look difficult ( "Boy, I don't
> immediately see a way to do this"), check to make sure that you really
> understand the theory, you're "doing it right" -- implementing a good
> solution for the problem, and if that fails, maybe you can fudge
> something other than the database, because the database is doing so
> much else for you.
> But if you decide that the view updating problem means that Codd's
> model is broken, therefore should be abandoned, what are you going to
> replace it with?

Vadim and Marshall have looked very hard at lattices and that shows some promise. Received on Fri Apr 24 2009 - 16:48:29 CEST

Original text of this message