Trent Shipley wrote:
On Tuesday 2006-06-13 09:26, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:18:17AM -0600, Scott Ribe wrote:
To hold it up as any kind of paradigm is really misinformed.
SQL had something that relational algebra/relational calculus did not
have, which is that somebody with
kleptog@svana.org (Martijn van Oosterhout) writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 05:23:56PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> > [3]
>> > http://www.intelligententerprise.com/010327/celko_online.jhtml;jsessionid=NDIHEWXGL4TNKQSNDBNSKHSCJUMEKJVN
>>
>> The sample problem in [3] is one that shows pret
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 05:23:56PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > [3]
> > http://www.intelligententerprise.com/010327/celko_online.jhtml;jsessionid=NDIHEWXGL4TNKQSNDBNSKHSCJUMEKJVN
>
> The sample problem in [3] is one that shows pretty nicely a
> significant SQL weakness; it's very painful
On Tuesday 2006-06-13 09:26, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:18:17AM -0600, Scott Ribe wrote:
> > > What say we just stop right there and call Date's Relational Model
> > > what it is: a silly edifice built atop wrong premises.
> >
> > SQL was a quick and dirty hack (Systems R and
Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>>> the terse mathematical notation commonly used...
>> Again, if you have a piece of software you can point to that does
>> this
>> thing, please do so.
>
> I seriously doubt it follows Date or Pascal religiously, but
> it does have a conv
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:51:57PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 6/13/06, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SQL was a quick and dirty hack...
>
If there are better alternatives, they will need to show some
real-world attributes, not mathematically-inspired fantasie
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:51:57PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 6/13/06, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> SQL was a quick and dirty hack (Systems R and R* needed some way
> >> to interface with data) with multiple deficiencies recognized and
> >> documented right within the very fi
On 6/13/06, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SQL was a quick and dirty hack (Systems R and R* needed some way to
> interface with data) with multiple deficiencies recognized and
> documented right within the very first paper by its own authors.
Perfection isn't a human attribute. There
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:18:17AM -0600, Scott Ribe wrote:
> > What say we just stop right there and call Date's Relational Model
> > what it is: a silly edifice built atop wrong premises.
>
> SQL was a quick and dirty hack (Systems R and R* needed some way to
> interface with data) with multiple
Aaron Bingham wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
In SQL, you can do this (this example condensed from Libkin's
"Expressive Power of SQL" on the page above):
SELECT
(SELECT count(*) FROM table_1) <
(SELECT count(*) FROM table_2)
AS "Can't compare cardinalities in first order logic";
Note the
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:55:04PM +0200, Aaron Bingham wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical Issues in
Database Management."
If you're interested in the theory of RDBMSs, you can start with th
On 8 Jun 2006 05:21:07 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical
Issues in Database Management."
Some questions:
1) Is PostgreSQL more faithful to relational theory? If so, do you find
yourself using the additional fu
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:20:46PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:09:12AM -0400, Agent M wrote:
> > Well, the Date argument against NULLs (and he never endorsed them,
> > or so he claims) is that they are not data- they represent the
> > absence of data- so why pu
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:55:04PM +0200, Aaron Bingham wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book
> >"Practical Issues in Database Management."
If you're interested in the theory of RDBMSs, you can start with the
papers on Leonid Libkin's page
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:09:12AM -0400, Agent M wrote:
> Well, the Date argument against NULLs (and he never endorsed them, or
> so he claims) is that they are not data- they represent the absence of
> data- so why put non-data in a _data_base.
At this point you could start a whole philosophic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical
Issues in Database Management."
I also found this book very useful when I first started doing serious
database work. For a more thorough treatment of many of these issues,
see An Introduction to D
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2006-06-09 10:12:21 +0200:
>> Agent M wrote:
>>> If you don't use NULL, then you don't
>>> come across 3-valued logic--problem solved.
>> So was does "SELECT sum(1) FROM dual WHERE false" return?
>
> You stripped this:
>
>>> Some Tutorial D notio
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2006-06-09 10:12:21 +0200:
> Agent M wrote:
> > If you don't use NULL, then you don't
> > come across 3-valued logic--problem solved.
>
> So was does "SELECT sum(1) FROM dual WHERE false" return?
You stripped this:
> > Some Tutorial D notions really make sense; I would
On Jun 8, 2006, at 9:32 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:09:21PM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up wit
Well, the Date argument against NULLs (and he never endorsed them, or
so he claims) is that they are not data- they represent the absence of
data- so why put non-data in a _data_base.
If you are asking yourself the question how you can have support
multiple meanings in a column, normalize. The
Agent M wrote:
> If you don't use NULL, then you don't
> come across 3-valued logic--problem solved.
So was does "SELECT sum(1) FROM dual WHERE false" return?
/Nis
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trent Shipley)
wrote:
> On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
>> testable system,
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:09:21PM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
> On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
> > testable system, or Hell freezes ove
On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
> testable system, or Hell freezes over, whichever comes first, Pascal's
> book will make a good companion on y
To balance the discussion, I would like to say that I thoroughly
enjoyed Date's latest "Database In Depth". It gave me a strong
foundation in relational theory and I can say that I think more about
my schema designs thanks to the advice in the text. Just because SQL
may allow something, doesn't
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:22:46PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:14, David Fetter wrote:
>
> > Pascal, Date, and Darwen have been alleging for years, with
> > increasing shrillness, that DBMSs should be based on set theory
> > and 2-value logic. I say "alleging" because t
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical
> Issues in Database Management."
Be aware that Pascal, along with Date and Darwen, are...how do I put
this gently...cranks. They've been getting more strident
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical
> Issues in Database Management."
>
> Though I've just gotten started with the book, he seems to be saying
> that modern RDBMSs aren't as faithful to relational theory as th
28 matches
Mail list logo
