Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: ross@stamina.com.au (Ross Ferris) Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory,comp.databases.pick Subject: Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving Date: 26 Oct 2003 05:41:35 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 28 Message-ID: <26f6cd63.0310260541.7a6a9af9@posting.google.com> References: <1efdad5b.0309260259.393522ae@posting.google.com> <1b0b566c.0310220347.1a3782b5@posting.google.com> <1b0b566c.0310222023.73e4ba5d@posting.google.com> <1b0b566c.0310240556.3bf271e6@posting.google.com> <0c6cnW994f01HgeiXTWJkQ@golden.net> <8vxmb.25533$e01.51735@attbi_s02> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.222.107.226 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1067175695 10034 127.0.0.1 (26 Oct 2003 13:41:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.theory:22086 comp.databases.pick:76493 "Bob Badour" wrote in message news:... > The values in a foreign key reference are redundant because they appear in > multiple relations. In this case, the redundancy is appropriate and > necessary to represent the data. Interesting "admission", or at least an observation. Of course this redundancy is ONLY necessary because of the "flat earth" nature of SQL implementations. If the data were stored in a multi-valued database, or even an XML data store, then the redundant data could be removed. I find it "interesting" that when speaking in relation to SQL database structures you are willing to accept some fundamental flaws as being "necessary", and yet will go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk systems that can happily eliminate this flaw. I'm reminded of a biblical quote about splinters, logs & eyes, but that would be only natural as you do appear to posses many of the traits of a religious zealot, and whilst I may see many of your comments are based on a total lack of understanding or knowledge of multi-valued database implementations in the real world, no doubt there are those that will blindly follow. For example, you may like to check your facts regarding Codd compliance of mv Data Structures, as I believe you will find that the latest 4.1 release of jBASE scores a perfect 12 ?!? (whilst even the Oracle darling can only scrape in an 11)