Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul G. Brown) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Badour) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul G. Brown) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > Lee Fesperman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > Jan Hidders wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seun Osewa wrote:
> > > > > > I would also like to know the classical arguments against the network
> > > > > > model or other "pointer based" models.  The only things I know are
> > > > > > that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ** using pointers to positions in memory or disk can be messy when
> > > > > > data has to be moved around.  But then is seems there are several
> > > > > > simple ways to solve this, e.g. what I can only call "logical
> > > > > > pointers".
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct. There's absolutely no reason to believe that you cannot have
> > > > > data independence with logical pointer or references. I would however
> > > > > argue that allowing entities without representable keys is not a good idea.
> > > > 
> > > > Incorrect. Even though you call them 'logical' pointers, they are still 
> > > > physical 
> > > > artifacts and have no place in a truly logical view of the database. Databases 
> > > > are about 
> > > > data, and pointers are not data (or meta-data).
> > > 
> > >  Erm . . 
> > > 
> > >   What's 'physical' about this?
> > 
> > Retrieval implies a physical operation, but a name is just a name
> > after all. Having two attributes called name in a single structure
> > requires physical location to disambiguate.
> 
>   Trouble with the old reading comprehension again, eh Bob?
>
>   Have another look at what I typed. See the semi-colon? Two relations. Two 
>   "structures", the attributes of which are unambiguous. 

Apparently, your reading comprehension is once again a problem,
because I see no semicolon in the following expression:
  ( E.Name, DEREF(E.Dept).Name FROM Emp E )


> > >   RELATION Dept ( Id Dept_Id KEY, Name String );
> > >   RELATION Emp  ( Id Emp_Id KEY,  Dept REF(Dept), 
> > >                     Name PersonName, Salary Money );
> > > 
> > >   RETRIEVE E.Name, DEREF(E.Dept).Name FROM Emp E;
> > > 
> > >   RETRIEVE E.Name FROM Emp E, Dept D 
> > >     WHERE DEREF(E.Dept).Id = E.Id AND D.Name = 'shoe';
> > 
> > Whether physical or not physical, the pointer is a superfluous
> > structural element. Other than increasing complexity, what purpose
> > does it serve?
> 
>     None. But that's not the point.

It's my point regardless of any other person's point.


> Pleas read the carefully quoted text 
>     from the previous posts. 
> 
>     Where do I sign up to get back into your twit-filter? 

I suggest you send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking them to fix
their usenet service so I do not have to use google groups. You could
also propose that google look into providing some sort of twit-filter.