Darren Duncan wrote: > > Being that arrays *are* relations, you can use all the relational > operators on them. >
Just to be totally clear - an array is not a relation. An array has fixed order of each dimension (eg columns and rows), and you address it by position. A relation is unordered (although you can use a query language like SQL to produce ordered tables), and you address it by data values. The rationale was that a user of the information wouldn't have to dig around to find out that Field 1 is Q1 sales, Field 2 is Q2 sales, Field 5 is Actual Sales to Date and Field 6 is Last Year Total Sales etc. Q2 Sales would have to have a name, although there's nothing to stop someone calling it SXVAT_Q2_PreCV2. It's better than nothing. Nothing's perfect and it seems no-one can say what a domain should contain but that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. Stick as close to relational thinking as you can, and your design will be that much more effective. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Table-within-a-table---tp26125451p26199506.html Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
