Re: Define "flatten database" ?


"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

Perhaps I might ask a related question. Do you believe that a table
corresponds, but perhaps only weakly, or even inconsistently, to a
"relation" as understood in the set theory of the RM, or do you
believe it is fair to call the database table a "relation", without
much qualification?

It seems to me, after years of doing both, that actually designing,
building and populating databases is considerably simpler than talking about
the same thing in c.d.t.

In practice, I had no problem talking about SQL tables and relations as if
they were essentially the same thing. Please, lurkers, DON'T teach me the
difference between a bag and a set. I already know.

In here, people are quite a bit more picky about terminology, perhaps
appropriately so. Sloppy terminology probably results in sloppy theory.

But here's my current response: define a "relational table" as the
representation of a relation in a relational database.
Describe an "SQL table" as an approximation to a relational table. Move on
from there.


.

Relevant Pages