Re: storing survey answers of different data types
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:48:29 -0300
Message-ID: <49f1d13f$0$5492$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> 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?
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:48:29 -0300
Message-ID: <49f1d13f$0$5492$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
lawpoop wrote:
> On Apr 24, 6:01 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> 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