Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?

From: Tegiri Nenashi <tegirinenashi_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5c1f50b8-adcd-4174-82c0-083e76259c38_at_c28g2000prj.googlegroups.com>



On Sep 30, 3:32 am, Tony Andrews <tony.andrew..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>  create table applications_with_immobolisers (application_id
> references applications primary key);
> ... etc.
>
> That may be the right approach in a theoretical true RDBMS, but I'm
> pretty sure it would get me sacked as a lunatic in any SQL-based DBMS
> team!

Ah, this is why one don't usually find any unary relation in SQL Dbms! This is very odd from theoretical perspective as one might expect there are many more unary relations than binary ones, many more binary than ternary and so on (akin to Zipfian distribution). Well SQL made creating a table more expensive than adding an column, that is one of its many implementational sins. Received on Thu Sep 30 2010 - 10:17:44 CDT

Original text of this message