In a message dated 12/23/2010 4:20:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
> > I'm still not seeing why you can't simply create an MV file for each > Table, > > a record for each row, and an attibute for each column. > > Where's the problem? > > Because if you do this you do not have a Multi-Valued database. You have > a relational database in a multi-value engine. In other words, the > *worst* of both worlds. There's nothing stopping you doing it. You just > don't end up with a Multi-Valued database at the end of it! > > I recognise your addy. Surely you know all this? It's all pretty basic > MultiValue! > Yes but. The original question however wasn't how to make an effective and efficient database in MV. Just how to make one from the first normal form tables. I certainly understand your point now, but you went a step beyond the requirement. The client isn't paying for that! And I disagree with your assessment that you don't have a Multi-Valued database at the end. You do, it's just flat. After all an empty MV file is still an MV file. A file in MV does not *have* to have multi-values in order to be a file in the MV environment. Certainly it's not the best possible organization of the data in MV. But it is a mapped version of the original first normal form tables. W _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
