Re: dbdebunk 'Quote of Week' comment
Date: 26 Aug 2005 20:38:12 -0700
Message-ID: <1125113887.410289.194700_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Marshall Spight wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
> > >
> > > Another difference between keys and pointers is that
> > > keys are content-addressible, while pointers are
> > > location-addressible.
> >
> > and there have been several prior discussions on pointers that I think
> > got most of us to the point of understanding that the pointers that the
> > relational model were eliminating were related to memory locations.
> > When talking about data that serve as references to other data at the
> > logical level, there is nothing in the relational model that prohibits
> > or even discourages such.
>
> I don't use the word "pointer" for such things. If we broaden
> the term "pointer" that far, it stops meaning much of anything.
> The appropriately generic term for data that *could* serve
> as references to other data at the logical level is "data".
That works for me too, but I read what was written at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBMS about multivalue databases and pointers and I don't get it. I've heard it before and I think it is hogwash, but it keeps coming back up, and we have established in the past (or at least I have) that sometimes I'm the one bringing the hogwash, so I want to get this straight.
Thanks. --dawn
>
> > > The differences between keys and pointers are small and
> > > sometimes subtle, but useful nonetheless.
> > >
> > It is interesting to me that the relational model that some say is
> > intended as a logical model for data had as one of its goals a physical
> > issue. What do you make of that? --dawn
>
> I don't know what you're referring to.
>
>
> Marshall
Received on Sat Aug 27 2005 - 05:38:12 CEST