Re: Database design
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:40:21 +0200
Message-ID: <dthij6$qi3$1_at_emma.aioe.org>
"Alexandr Savinov" <spam_at_conceptoriented.com> wrote in message news:43fc2df6$1_at_news.fhg.de...
> > This whole 'flat' debate is nonsense too. Write a database down in its
> > mathematical form, devoid of tables, and tell me how on earth it can be
> > flat (which semantically means two-dimensional of course), deep, fat,
> > thin, whatever. If you mean it doesn't support composite types say
> > that. If you mean it contains no explicit links, say that. Calling it
> > flat is semantically redundant and doesn't aid any real discussion.
> I have seen at least two definitions of the term "flat" in this
discussion:
> - a structure is said to be flat if it consists of columns and rows,
> that is, any element can be retrieved by specifying a column and a row.
> - a structure is said to be flat if it is equivalent to n-dimensional
> space (that is, with only one level where points are characterized by
> their coordinates along n dimensions).
> It is an answer on your question "how on earth it can be flat".
> You can also define a structure as deep. For example, if it is
> equivalent to a hierarchical space. It is also not excluded that some
> other term could be helpful such as fat, thin etc. Notice that these
> terms are far from the most exotic ones in science. (Fuzziness and
> roughness of sets, charmness of quarks etc.)
Do you know about any published academic paper about relational databases in
which the term flat is defined ?
Why is it useful to define this term from a scientific point of view ?
Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 12:40:21 CET