Re: Database design

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>define our terms first. So what does "flat" mean exactly?
>The term is suggestive merely; there is no formal meaning
>that I am aware of.

Let's assume one wishes to represent attributes of some entity. Let's say one can reduce some of these to scalars. Let's say some would prefer not to refer to this object as an entity or instance, but always a tuple, and would prefer to store only scalars as attributes, just for sake of argument. Let's further say that one might collect these tuples, these instances, into a set, and even perhaps call it a relation. These are collected in no particular order. And while the attributes need to be named, and should be positionally consistent, as on an old punch card, the position is otherwise arbitrary.

There's no rank, no heirarchy. There's nothing above. There's nothing below. And are you suggesting such cannot be reduced to some simple set notation?

>Relations are flat because all the air went out of them

A relation is flat because there is no proper order between entities, entries, instances, what have you, tuples, and there are no other relations, besides. There's no boss. There's no subordinate. There's no sub-assembly, no full path.

>after they rolled over some glass.

Or perhaps likely rubbing a dry spike over a dry chalkboard?

I just don't know.

>Relations look flat next to Pamela Anderson

I take you are referring to her acting ability? Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 10:49:41 CET