Re: does a table always need a PK?

"Heikki Tuuri" <Heikki.Tuuri_at_innodb.com> wrote in message news:SiQ2b.467$4X.270_at_read3.inet.fi...
> Hi!
>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:ZIN2b.963$8o2.85881998_at_mantis.golden.net...
> > "Heikki Tuuri" <Heikki.Tuuri_at_innodb.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > See RM V2.
> >
>
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0201141922&
> > itm=1
>
> The book is selling too well: "Not Currently Available.
> A new copy is not available from Barnes & Noble.com at this time. A used
> copy may be available from our network of book dealers."

Give the guy a break; he is dead after all. Try the library or one of the used book dealers.

> ...
> > > Now you are approaching my view. Codd's 12 rules are heuristic
thoughts
> > > which can be used to guide us to build formal systems.
> >
> > Codd's 12 rules are vendor commissioned rules of thumb chosen in some
> > respects to show the paying vendor in a good light relative to its
> > competitors.
> >
> >
> > > They are not exact
> > > principles.
> >
> > Excuse me? What exactly are exact principles? Do you realise how
absurdly
> > ridiculous you sound?
>
> For example, mathematical axioms systems like the ZFC set theory, and the
> Peano arithmetic can be seen as exact formal systems.

Duh! I didn't ask about formal systems. I asked about your ridiculous statement regarding exact principles.

It's getting close to the time to invoke Date's Principle of Incoherence.

> ...
> > > > When other SQL vendors stop making specious claims about being
> > relational,
> > > I
> > > > am sure Lee will stop too.
> > >
> > > Is this not intellectual dishonesty?
> >
> > No, not necessarily. Perhaps, Lee will indulge us and allow us to judge
> his
> > competence, intellectual honesty and integrity by answering the
following
> > questions. Heikki, you can indulge us by doing the same.
>
> Are you being intellectually dishonest by claiming that the above is not
> intellectual dishonesty?

No.

> > Lee, are you game? Heikki?
> >
> > Is your product a dbms? If so, what are the features necessary to make
it
> a
> > dbms? If not, what additional components are required to make it a dbms?
>
> Yes. But a "DBMS" is a vague concept and I do not have time to define
> "Heikki Tuuri -DBMS".

I have to conclude you lack competence, intellectual honesty or both.

> > Does SQL provide perfect relational fidelity?
>
> Yes, if we define a relational database as an SQL database.

You lack all three: competence, intellectual honesty and integrity.

> > Do any implemented or proposed languages provide greater relational
> fidelity
> > than SQL?
>
> I guess Dataphor implements a more Codd-1970-relational language than SQL.

Your answer indicates a lack of competence. Guessing suggests the possibility of ignorance, which is more honest than denying ignorance, but a simple "I don't know" would be more honest.

> > If not relational fidelity, does SQL have any advantage over these
> > languages? If so, what?
>
> People know it. It has been standardized by ANSI/ISO.

I'll accept that as a good answer.

> > Are you aware of any sound theory purporting to deal with the problem of
> > missing information?
>
> Hmm... 3-valued logic itself is a sound theory, I guess.

Your answer indicates a profound lack of competence and strongly suggests a lack of honesty and integrity.

> But I think it is
> computationally too complex and possibly undecidable.

Your elaboration compounds the evidence of incompetence and confirms the impression of dishonesty and unscrupulousness.

> > Has anyone ever proposed a flawless solution to the problem of missing
> > information?
>
> I do not know.

Now, that is an honest answer.

> Maybe we can even show that there is no efficiently
> computable solution.

That is pedantic speculation. You mean it to sound impressive, but it is almost devoid of content. This nullifies the honesty of the answer and suggests a lack of integrity.

> > Does the mathematical identity "SUM(A)+SUM(B)=SUM(A+B)" demonstrate a
flaw
> > or limitation of SQL's NULL?
>
> This is a well-known problem.

Is it? Then you can easily explain how the identity demonstrates the flaw, how SQL could easily change to correct this flaw, and what consequences this would have.

> I have myself thought about a solution where
> we simply mark with variable symbols Xi the unknowns in the sum. But users
> are not happy if they get a result:
>
> SUM(table1.column1) = 35 + X0 + X1 + ... + Xn
> if there are n NULLs in the table.

Of course, they would be unhappy. SUM returns a number not a series--your proposal would fundamentally change the result of SUM.

> > If so, does 4VL overcome the specific flaw or limitation demonstrated?
>
> I do not know 4-valued logic.

At least that's an honest answer; although, it suggests incompetence from a self-proclaimed dbms vendor.

> > Does 4VL overcome any flaws of 3VL? If so, can you briefly name or
> describe
> > any?
> >
> > Does 3VL overcome any flaws of 4VL? If so, can you briefly name or
> describe
> > any?
> >
> > Do Codd's 12 rules completely specify the relational model?
>
> They do not specify what Codd-12-relational exactly means because they are
> not a formal system.

A simple no would suffice. The add-on pedantry suggests a lack of intellectual honesty and a lack of integrity.

> The 1970 paper does not either.

While the 1970 paper does not fully specify the requirements of database management, it does specify the relational model as a formal system. Your answer indicates incompetence and/or dishonesty.

> > Briefly, in your opinion, what is the exact nature of Codd's list of 12
> > rules?
>
> Already answered this question in an earlier message.

I didn't see it. Given the nature and the quality of your other answers, I will take some license and simply assume you are avoiding the question.

> > Is the list a useful tool for comparing dbms products?
>
> No, because we nowadays do not see such comparisons. Databases are usually
> compared in terms of performance, standards conformance, reliability,
> existence of interfaces, and so on.

I find your answer self-contradictory. It suggests incompetence and dishonesty.

> > Are all of the 12 rules equally important for such comparisons?
>
> No.

This answer contradicts the previous answer further confirming incompetence and dishonesty.

> > Are you aware of any products that can claim greater adherence to any of
> the
> > rules than your product? Feel free to elaborate or to explain how your
> > product's features compensate in some other way.
>
> Yes, lots of databases do. But MySQL/InnoDB is released under the GNU GPL
> license and it is fast. Transaction management in InnoDB is rather
complete
> with next-key locking, multiversioning, and all 4 isolation levels defined
> by SQL-1992.

While I am not qualified to judge some of the elaboration, the basic message is honest.

> > Overall, do any other SQL dbms products provide greater relational
> fidelity
> > than your product?
>
> Many databases are more Codd-12-relational than MySQL/InnoDB.

Honest.

> > Why do think your product provides greater relational fidelity than
other
> > SQL products?
>
> It does not.

Honest.

> > From the answers to the above questions, one should be able to judge the
> > competence, honesty and integrity of an SQL dbms vendor.
>
> Well, not really. Customers never ask the above questions.

I asked the above questions. From your answers I can judge your competence, honesty and integrity. The bulk of your answers suggest profound incompetence, intellectual dishonesty and a general lack of integrity. You answered just enough of the questions in a plainly honest manner to suggest honesty, which is exactly what I would expect from a dishonest, unscrupulous person trying to mislead others.

Also, the questions answered in a plainly honest manner seem carefully chosen to indicate disdain for relational fidelity, which is only further evidence of cunning dishonesty.

> Honesty is better
> judged from answers to questions which matter to the customer.

One can only judge honesty from answers to questions where the other party has motive to lie and one has the ability to discern truth. Most vendors are very practiced in their answers to common, predictable questions, which make the questions all customers ask particularly uninformative. Received on Wed Aug 27 2003 - 02:21:16 CEST