use Perl

• Ow ow ow (Score:1)

  by sigzero (5768)

  My brain is hurting!

  Okay, not really. But this has been interesting reading.
  • Re:Ow ow ow (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    What's really frustrating is that much of the problems associated with nulls would go away if database vendors would start supplying DBMS which enforce relational data (SQL doesn't). First, we would need something called "distributed foreign keys" -- mentioned in the PDF I link to. Next, databases would have to be optimized to handle 6NF, something which is rarely seen, and 1NF, something which is not well-understood. Further, queries would need to return relations. In other words, they would need to re
    • Re:Ow ow ow (Score:1)

      by thepler (6873) on 2007.05.01 16:34 (#54780) Homepage

      I can't believe I'm only now seeing this post...

      Since reading Database In Depth, I've also realized that the object-relational impedance mismatch is a myth. It is a persistent myth, but a myth none the less.

      Here's the quote from that book that I always go back to:

      All of which goes a long way, incidentally, toward explaining why a true "object/relational" system would be nothing more nor less than a true relational system—which is to say, a system that supports the relational model, with all that such support entails. After all, the whole point of an "object/relational" system is precisely that we can have attribute values in relations that are of arbitrary complexity. Perhaps a better way to say it is this: a proper object/relational system is just a relational system with proper type support—which just means it's a proper relational system, no more and no less.

      I take this as meaning that a proper type system is a prerequisite for building a proper relational system.

      Reply to This

      Parent