Re: Agility and Data Design (was: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL)

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:<Abmmb.22964$HS4.88856_at_attbi_s01>...
> "Mike Preece" <michael_at_preece.net> wrote in message news:1b0b566c.0310240611.1b130a87_at_posting.google.com...
> >
> > On the contrary. Enforcing integrity is, in the experience of
> > SQL-relational database adherents, of crucial importance. It is not
> > important to the same degree in Pick.
>
> I think what you mean to say is that it's not as hard. I don't think
> you mean to say that data integrity is not important for Pick.
> Do you? You're not saying that data corruption is okay, right?
>

No. I'm not saying it's not important. I guess you want to know how I am able to say "to the same degree". In Pick, enforcing data integrity is done in different ways. Much of it is done as input validation, and some of it is done within an application running as part of the DBMS, and some of it is not necessary. If I refer back to the discussion about contextual relationships existing as information but not as physical data maybe you can get the idea I'm trying to make here.  

>
> > This is because there are fewer
> > tables and fewer pointers between those tables - hence, less critical
> > need to maintain their integrity.

[snip]

Mike. Received on Mon Oct 27 2003 - 06:24:59 CET