Re: Interesting article: In the Beginning: An RDBMS history


David Cressey wrote:
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144354101.878068.281070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

David Cressey wrote:
"x" <x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e12djb$ha2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't think so. I think he was making the distinction between
attributes
specified by name and attributes specified by position.

What is the difference between a "name" and a "position" from a
mathematically point of view ?

I can't speak for Codd on this, and I don't choose to speak for myself.

The only difference is the domain for the function, whether it is a set
of counting numbers or a set of attribute names. If counting numbers,
then there is an obvious order (function), represented as the order of
a tuple.

This is not true.

If the numbers were explictily used as if they were names, in every place
where a specific attribute is specified, your statement would be true.

I don't see how a function being explicitly written or not makes any
difference. In some systems you can refer to an attribute either by
name or number. They serve as two different names for the attributes.

However, if attributes are expressed in the form of a list, as they are in
mathematics when discussing relations, then the mapping between attributes
and values is based on position in the list.

However, that was not Codd's point.

Codd's point was that users should not have to remember "names" like 23, 24,
25, ...etc. in order to specify attributes in a query.

I would have to re-read things to be sure, but I thought perhaps his
concern was over decoupling the logical and physical model of the
attributes. In systems where attributes are referred by numbers, there
is often a correlation between the logical and physical order, although
there need not be.

It amuses me when people make a big deal about there being no order of
the attributes in a relation (which is then not strictly a relation as
Codd pointed out). Given that attributes are specified to the system
in some order (create table...) and output in some order, what do I
care if under the covers it knows a mapping from the counting numbers
to the attribute values or from attribute names to attribute values or
both?

A lot of things amuse you.

Indeed.

In this case, your amusement stems from the fact that you view the text that
represents a create table as being the create table itself.

I most certainly do not. Are you suggesting there really is some valid
reason for insisting that there be no function mapping a subset of the
natural numbers to attribute values? I can imagine someone concerned
about maintaining that ordering or some such, but if that is done by
the dbms software, who cares? How bad would it be if you got
attributes in the exact same order each time you did a select *? ;-)
--dawn

.

Relevant Pages