mlw wrote:
>
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> >
> > Dear Team,
> >
> > I have been monitoring this list for quite some time now and have been
> > studying PostGreSQL for a while. I also did some internet research on the
> > subject of "multi valued" database theory. I know that this is the basi
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> Dear Team,
>
> I have been monitoring this list for quite some time now and have been
> studying PostGreSQL for a while. I also did some internet research on the
> subject of "multi valued" database theory. I know that this is the basis for
> the "Pick" databas
Title: Message
Surely
the real strength of Pick, Unidata et al. is not so much the mv fields (which
can be relatively easily emulated using array types) but the data dictionaries
and the way the same field can be defined in multiple ways (data formats) with
different names, or that you can c
> I suppose arrays are PostgreSQL's equivalent of multi-valued data (is it
> possible to have arrays of arrays?) So it could be argued that
> PostgreSQL already provides part of what Arthur wants.
It seems to me that there would be a whopping lot of value to the exercise of
figuring out some wa
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 19:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I also did some internet research on the subject of "multi valued"
database theory. I know that this is the basis for the "Pick" database
system
For those who aren't familiar with PICK, it is an untyped database
(apart from weak types prov
