Re: Mutivalued datatypes considered harmful

Kevin Powick wrote:
This was posted in the OpenQM NG this morning.

Mutivalued datatypes considered harmful
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/07/18/multivalued_datatypes_access/

Very interesting, and much more down-to-earth explanation of why MV = Bad
than I've yet seen in cdt, for example. It seems to boil down to "Try
constructing an SQL query that does <x>," where <x> is trivial with an
English statement. So the argument seems to be that MV = Bad because
SQL can't deal with MV. (Bruce addressed this in another response.)

And how to reconcile this: "The development team feels that power users
find the creation of many-to-many joins using three tables conceptually
very difficult and will find multi-valued data types a much easier solution.
Having taught Access to such users since Access 1.0 I cannot help but agree
with this. Access power users will find this solution easier."

with this: "People who understand databases already have a good way of
implementing many to many relationships and will gain no benefit from
multi-valued fields."

Are "power users" different than "people who understand databases?"
Or, does "a much easier solution" provide "no benefit?"

--
frosty


.