Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?

From: Erwin <e.smout_at_myonline.be>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <bc5c81d0-e4f2-4137-a16b-8a583b611cc2_at_28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>


On 1 okt, 15:54, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
> On 1 okt, 14:41, Tony Andrews <tony.andrew..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 1:04 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
>
> > > On 30 sep, 12:32, Tony Andrews <tony.andrew..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Or we could create a plethora of tables like:
> > > >  create table applications_with_garages (application_id references
> > > > applications primary key);
> > > >  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!
>
> > > If your SQL-based DBMS had proper physical data independence, then I
> > > am quite convinced your claim would be false.
>
> > But would this unary table approach to avoid a Boolean attribute
> > really be considered good practice in a true RDBMS?  If I want to know
> > "does the applicant's car have an immboliser", is the absence of a row
> > in applications_with_immobilisers sufficient to answer it?  I thought
> > that was a proposed solution to missing information ("it is unknown
> > whether the applicant's car has an immobiliser"), now it seems to be
> > acting as available information - i.e. the predicate "applicant 123's
> > car does not have an immboliser".  Seems dubious to "record" a known
> > fact by, er, not recording it.
>
> Does this make a meaningful difference ?
>
> I mean, you came up with the example of checkboxes on paper.  The
> checkbox on paper can be "marked" if the corresponding label/property
> is "true".  If the checkbox on paper is not marked, you interpret that
> as "false", no ?  You wouldn't consider/interpret this as
> "unanswered", or "unknown", or whatever, no ?
>
> If the answer is two-way, then those two ways are isomorphic to "tuple
> present"/"tuple absent", no ?  And "unknown"/"unanswered" simply
> doesn't enter the picture, no ?
>
> If you want to _explicitly_ take the option of "unknown"/"unanswered"
> into account, then on the paper version, you would be _forced_ to
> provide an _additional_ checkbox saying "I know the answer to the next
> question", or "You can consider the next checkbox as having been
> answered", no ?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

PS

This is the same phenomenon as http forms containing a checkbox. Checked implies that the posted URL contains a <fieldname>=true portion, unchecked means that the posted URL does not contain <fieldname> at all. Checkbox unanswered is, by itself, irrepresentible in HTML. Received on Fri Oct 01 2010 - 15:58:02 CEST

Original text of this message