Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- From: "V.J. Kumar" <vjkmail@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2007 00:22:45 +0200
Vadim Tropashko <vadimtro_invalid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1177607284.813162.87940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
This is an interesting observation as well. Consider a medical
database schema:
PatientSymptom (
name string,
symptom string
)
DeceaseSymptom (
name string,
symptom string
)
Would db designers pressed hard to avoid set joins and create a
redundant relation
The db designers won't be hard pressed to avoid set containment joins at
all because the above schema does't have any set valued attributes to
join on -:)
What relation is redundant depends on your point of view. 'Symptom
string' is an ugly hack to emulate relational division for the original
table you've specified below. You surely do not claim that the symptom
string is a set valued attribute, do you ? Medical db developers usually
have to maintain both tables for obvious reasons.
PatientDeceases (
patient_name string,
decease_name string,
)
?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- From: Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- From: Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- References:
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- From: paul c
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- From: Vadim Tropashko
- Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- Prev by Date: Re: temporal data constraints
- Next by Date: Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- Next by thread: Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?
- Index(es):