Impedance Mismatch?

From: Vadim Tropashko <vadimtro_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5971733f-5778-496a-aa66-a4df5bbbd6e7_at_z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>



On Sep 30, 8:17 am, Tegiri Nenashi <tegirinena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Expanded this idea a little:
http://vadimtropashko.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/impedance-mismatch/ Received on Thu Sep 30 2010 - 12:09:16 CDT

Original text of this message