Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

[coalescing two messages.]

Jan Hidders wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
> Me personally? It raises all kinds of new and intricate research
> questions that seem mathematically challenging. That doesn't mean that I
> don't think XML is practically useful, on the contrary, but this is what
> primarily fascinates me about it.

Hmmm. I detect a hint of "I like it because it's complicated."
That concerns me.


> Oh yes. Everything you mention above is in there, including key
> constraints. The typing system is also very elaborate, it even allows
> you to define certains sets of strings described by regular expression
> as strings, and is user-extensible.

Does that mean it's not statically typed? I don't see how you
could statically type whether a string belonged to a regular
expression or not, at least not if you wanted to have regular
strings be assignable at runtime.


> Let me mention two small things. In the RM if you want to add a
> one-to-many relationship between two entities you have to extend one of
> the relations with a foreign key. If there are more than one candidate
> key you have to choose one of them. In an ER model you don't have to
> make such a choice, you simply indicate that there is a relationship.

Uh, how is that going to work? If I have a user id and an email
address as keys, and some user-level detail data (specified as
many-to-one with users) and I don't specify a key, what happens
when I change the email address key? I don't see how you can
get away with not picking one and still having the generality
you get if you do pick one.


> Another small thing is updating primary keys. If a primary key has
> accidentally been entered wrong and you want to fix that with an update
> then it is usually not possible to simply update it, and the problem
> gets even worse if it is also refered to by foreign keys. In an ER model
> this is a non-problem.

Would these issue be solved with opaque keys? I feel that one problem
with SQL is that the keys are often integers, which they really
shouldn't
be since it doesn't make sense to add and subtract keys.


> I basically have the FDM data model in mind, but modernized a bit.

I'd like to read more about this. It seems like there are some acm
papers on this; I can try to get some of them. Any favorites?


Marshall

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To store a huge table during start-up of a J2EE application
    ... where I will create two strings. ... if your primary keys and index are setup ... a database query should not run for more than tens of ... dont see the value of losing the ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • RE: question of performance
    ... I've always wondered why *anyone* would recommend using strings as primary ... I realize they can make primary keys more "readable" if built up like ... If you're comparing millions of keys to build a ... compared in one CMP operation (one op to move the base integer to a register, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • Re: Does Codds view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
    ... you to define certains sets of strings described by regular expression ... as strings, and is user-extensible. ... the relations with a foreign key. ... many-to-one with users) and I don't specify a key, ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Print strings based on regular expression
    ... YH> let users visualize what the matching strings look like. ... YH> program has great educational value in teaching regular expressions. ... Every time it picks one but different character to output. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Need better string methods
    ... Here is the simplest design pattern so far (taking the suggestions of ... The use of regular expressions allows a pattern like the above code ... methods to simplify working with lists of strings. ...
    (comp.lang.python)