Re: Stupidest table I ever saw (dup msg?)

This message is at least a month old. Why is it popping back up now?

Aliens?

>
>
> > You mean that table definition becomes more compact like this
> >
> > TYPE string_list_t AS TABLE OF VARCHAR2(240);
> >
> > table PRICING_ATTRIBUTES (
> > PRICING_ATTRIBUTES string_list_t,
> > PRICING_CONTEXT VARCHAR2(30),
> > QUALIFIER_ATTRIBUTES string_list_t
> > QUALIFIER_CONTEXT VARCHAR2(30)
> > }
> >
> > right? Hey, this is not funny any more. People still would question if we could
> > query such a table, and if the application program around it would be readable,
> > but is not as strikingly stupid as the original.
>
>
> > It is amaising how
> > arrays/collections are able to hide design ridicule, though. Maybe this is why
> > relationists dislike traditional programming fetures;-)
> >
>
> Indeed. Managers can often follow and see the structure
> of a RDBMS setup, but would rarely touch an array.
>
>
> >
> > In article <ZvWQ6.4556$rn5.235328_at_www.newsranger.com>, Vadim Tropashko says...
> > >
> > >That was clearly written before nested tables and other modern stuff arrived.
> > >The question is if one would code this with nested table (aka array), would it
> > >make the design less stupid?
> > >
>
>
> Are you saying that one cannot fix (normalize) the table?
> That is the first thing I would try to do. However,
> jillions of programs may reference it in its current
> (nasty) state.
>
> Hey! I got a brilliant idea! Turn it into an OO class
> with 90 set/gets! Just kiddin'.
>
>
> > >In article <tGXM6.6343$6j3.567845_at_www.newsranger.com>, Mikito Harakiri says...
> > >>
> > >>Name Null? Type
> > >>------------------------------- -------- ----
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE1 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE2 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE3 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE4 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE5 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE6 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE7 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE8 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE9 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >>PRICING_ATTRIBUTE10 VARCHAR2(240)
> > >> ... 90 more
> > >
>
>
> Isn't there also 90 "QUALIFIER_ATTRIBUTES" snipped out?
>
>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -T-
>

-T- Received on Sun Jul 22 2001 - 05:12:22 CEST