Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname@lastnameplusfam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational?
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:52:57 -0400
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <ptsbkc.0h8.ln@mercury.downsfam.net>
References: <hqd6kc.4go.ln@mercury.downsfam.net> <bVT9d.361333$Fg5.257522@attbi_s53> <tOKdnUpZC8NPtvXcRVn-sg@comcast.com> <eP%9d.219935$D%.37995@attbi_s51> <2srmk1F1njk29U1@uni-berlin.de> <9n2ad.153703$wV.90666@attbi_s54> <pbhbkc.5d7.ln@mercury.downsfam.net> <Qtcad.366672$Fg5.150351@attbi_s53>
Reply-To: sameas@email.address
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de oXbvRUhGdbjE9CmwOYovYwqLZtcjgVMjk8wmh9F7zFBBWm7dk0
X-Orig-Path: mercury.downsfam.net!nobody
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:26739

Marshall Spight wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname@lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:pbhbkc.5d7.ln@mercury.downsfam.net...
>> Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>> > "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message
>> > news:2srmk1F1njk29U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> >>
>> >> If you cut columns off of the result set, it is possible for the
>> >> result set to, in fact, not be a "set", but rather a non-unique "bag"
>> >> of tuples.
>> >> [...]
>> >> That is NOT going to be a "set" or a "relation" if some customer made
>> >> multiple purchases between those dates.
>> >>
>> >> The problem that this expresses is that the relational algebra does
>> >> not satisfy the property of closure.
>> >
>> > That's an odd viewpoint.
>> >
>> > The math books I've read have made the point that when you
>> > are talking about sets, then {2, 2} is the same set as {2}.
>> > So if you have duplicates after a project, you just throw
>> > them away; they "don't count" so to speak.
>> >
>>
>> Therefore, wouldn't the implementation of SQL have some sort of implied
>> DISTINCT on every SELECT statement?
> 
> We've switched from talking about the relational algebra to talking about
> SQL.
> 
> Yes, the relational algebra has an implied "distinct" on the result of
> every operation. No, SQL doesn't. This is one of the ways SQL
> isn't relational.
> 
> 
> Marshall

So someday when there is a FAQ, one section has to be on SQL's
non-relational behaviors.  From these, any product depending upon SQL will
display those non-relational behaviors.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me
