Re: Shared game-data (was: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface)

>Hey I'm just using terminology I found in Codd's own papers.In earlier
>ones he used "simple domain" but he seems to have switch to "atomic"
>after that.

And others dropped "atomic" after that. Codd's papers are not a good reference for the state of the art.

>> But the values might be as complex as you want.

>Yes logically but in practice they are normalized to "single",
>"simple", "atomic", "scalar" attributes.

This is not considered normalization anymore and a 1NF relation might contain any kind of value.

>You could eliminate pointers but at what cost. In some applications
>performance and not theory conformance is what matters most.

With no cost. Do you really know what physical independence is?

>Can you cite some papers on the subject. Meantime I'm ok with it.

Yes, but I prefer to give references for a complete reading.

http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/629796.htm

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/databaseid/ Pages 29 to 32

>That extra level of indirection is ok in some applications but not
>others.

There is not any extra level of indirection. Both solutions might produce the same machine code.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Mon May 01 2006 - 17:28:56 CEST