Re: foundations of relational theory? - some references for the truly starving
From: Patrick Latimer <">
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:29:38 -0500
Message-ID: <YtydnTVyWJNxkzqiRVn-tA_at_comcast.com>
>
> news:<fHrE46GYsFo$EwWN_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> appear
>
>
> SQL
>
>
> relationship.
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> You have to stop and consider to whom you are replying. Wol is ignorant and
> stupid.
<snip>
Dave consider who is replying to you.
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:29:38 -0500
Message-ID: <YtydnTVyWJNxkzqiRVn-tA_at_comcast.com>
Bob Badour wrote:
> "Dave Best" <davebest_at_usa.net> wrote in message
> news:ea757642.0311031305.1beca7a4_at_posting.google.com...
>
>>"Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:<fHrE46GYsFo$EwWN_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>>In article <CUYmb.86063$Ms2.64480_at_fed1read03>, daveb >>><davebest_at_SuPsAaM.net> writes >>> >>>>"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.
>
>>>Where? There is no key (foreign or otherwise) with which to do the link, >>>because there is no need to do a link. >>> >>>So yes there is a structural relationship, but there is no redundancy >>>because no information is stored - it is IMplicit in the data store, not >>>EXplicit. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Wol >> >>The foreign key is in the logical model. Any nested relation has a >>primary key consisting of the primary key columns of the containing >>relation (and which form a foreign key to it) plus its own primary key >>columns. In Pick, the primary key of a MV element is the primary key >>of the record plus its array index. >> >>A relational database with relation-value (nested) attributes can >>choose to physically store them clustered with the containing >>relation, and so does not have to physically store the redundant >>columns. >> >>The logical model of the data can be thought of as the API which a >>program uses to access the data. This is distinct from the way it is >>physically stored on the disk, which can be anything the vendor >>chooses, including the Pick method of value-encoded variable-length >>strings (so long as this representation is not exposed by the API).
>
>
> Dave,
>
> You have to stop and consider to whom you are replying. Wol is ignorant and
> stupid.
<snip>
Dave consider who is replying to you.
Patrick, <;=)
P.S. Bob you're an Idiot, and unfortunatately too narrowminded to even realize it. It's the pity. (Big compensatory truck huh?) Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 03:29:38 CET