Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving

"daveb" <davebest_at_SuPsAaM.net> wrote in message news:<CUYmb.86063$Ms2.64480_at_fed1read03>...
> "Ross Ferris" <ross_at_stamina.com.au> wrote in message
> news:26f6cd63.0310260541.7a6a9af9_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:<GumdnaAjFvrJmQaiU-KYvg_at_golden.net>...
> > > 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.
>
> No, you have merely encoded the redundancy in the structural relationship.
>
> Dave

Is there something redundant about a single occurance?

Maybe you would rather I put that question another way:

FirstSentence: Is there something redundant about (refer to SecondSentence)?

SecondSentence: A single occurance.

Regards
Mike. Received on Mon Oct 27 2003 - 03:10:55 CET