Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> Seun Osewa wrote:
> > I would also like to know the classical arguments against the network
> > model or other "pointer based" models. The only things I know are
> > that:
> >
> > ** using pointers to positions in memory or disk can be messy when
> > data has to be moved around. But then is seems there are several
> > simple ways to solve this, e.g. what I can only call "logical
> > pointers".
>
> Correct. There's absolutely no reason to believe that you cannot have
> data independence with logical pointer or references. I would however
> argue that allowing entities without representable keys is not a good idea.

Incorrect. Even though you call them 'logical' pointers, they are still physical artifacts and have no place in a truly logical view of the database. Databases are about data, and pointers are not data (or meta-data).

This is very old news.

The OP needs to increase his knowledge of database concepts before he tries to 'fix' things. A newsgroup is the wrong place to get any real depth of understanding.

-- 
Lee Fesperman, FirstSQL, Inc. (http://www.firstsql.com)
==============================================================
* The Ultimate DBMS is here!
* FirstSQL/J Object/Relational DBMS  (http://www.firstsql.com)