On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Jay A. Kreibich <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
There are two mathematical systems that can be used to define and prove
> the self-consistency of the Relational Model. One system is called
> "Relational Algebra" and the other "Relational Calculus." The two
> systems start from slightly different base assumptions, and allow
> slightly different types of proofs, but you can more or less prove
> all of the Relational Model using either system.
>
Another new search term :).
> Unless you actually want postulate theorems or do proofs, the details
> of Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus aren't that important.
> If you trust that some very smart people did their math correctly,
> you can just trust that the proofs work out. What is useful and
> important is understanding the Relational Model itself, which gives
> you a much better idea of the fundamental operations behind SQL
> statements, as well as stuff like the Normal Forms and the theory
> behind them.
>
That's precisely what i'm looking for - someone else has done the math and
described the results in a way we non-mathematicians can muddle through.
> I would argue, strongly, that DBAs and database developers that have
> a solid understanding of the Relational Model are much better at what
> they do.
And that's one of the goals here - to level up my SQL-Fu.
... clean OOP is all about (because C++ sure as heck isn't that, even if
> it is a darn useful language). So it is with SQL-- darn useful, but
> not quite what the theory is about, and a very foggy glass to try to
> learn the theory through.
>
That's an excellent summary.
SQL and Relational Theory (2nd Ed) by C.J. Date
> http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920022879.do
>
> Relational Theory for Computer Professionals by C.J. Date
> http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920029649.do
i'll download those tonight :).
> They'll get into some details about the theory, but not to the point
> of actual algebra or Greek math symbols to define the theory.
:-D
> presenter. He's also a very, very theory heavy guy that tends to put
> elegance and theory before any practical concern-- which is great for
> research and teaching, but less useful for getting stuff done by a
> deadline.
Sounds like he and i will get along fine :). i enjoy bikeshedding the gory
details as much as the next guy.
> Still, in the last eight years or so he has visibly
> shifted his stance from something of a "SQL sux and must die" point
> of view to a more relaxed "since you're going to work in SQL anyways,
> you may as well do it right." And *that* I can agree with.
>
LOL!
Thank you and Paolo VERY much for your inputs.
--
----- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
