Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

Note: In "Setting Matters Straight" posts I debunk online pronouncements that involve fundamentals which I first post on LinkedIn. The purpose is to induce practitioners to test their foundation knowledge against our debunking, where we explain what is correct and what is fallacious. For in-depth treatments check out the POSTS and our PAPERS, LINKS and BOOKS (or organize one of our on-site/online SEMINARS, which can be customized to specific needs). Questions and comments are welcome here and on LinkedIn.

 

“As I have said many times, if the original relational model had been based on predicate logic and also the semantics and rules of definitions we'd all be better off now. It wasn't. Full stop.”

--Ronald Ross, LinkedIn.com

Assessing such arguments normally requires clarification of what exactly is meant by "the relational model". Ross does refer specifically to the "original" -- which we take to mean that introduced by Codd in 1969-70 -- but given the massive misuse and abuse in the industry, perceptions of it may well be corrupted (Nobody Understands the Relational Model Semantics, Relational Closure and Database Correctness).  Moreover, there are many predicate logic (PL) systems and many ways of categorizing them (1st vs n-th order being only one way) -- we assume Ross means RDM is based on none.

Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

Note: "Then & Now" (t&n) is a new version of what used to be the "Oldies but Goodies" (OBG) series. To demonstrate the superiority of a sound theoretical foundation relative to the industry's fad-driven "cookbook" practices, as well as the disregarded evolution/progress of RDM, I am re-visiting my old debunkings, bringing them up to the current state of knowledge. This will enable you to judge how well arguments have held up and realize the increasing gap between industry stagnation -- and scientific progress.

(This a revised version of an earlier post with clarity improvements).

Q: “What would you suggest for a datetime field where the value is not known and should therefore be not-applicable?”
A: ”NULL sounds good to me.”

While searching through records I came across an old consulting project involving the migration of a neo-natal research database from Focus -- an old hierarchic DBMS -- used to record extensive details about hundreds of monthly births at a university hospital for more than 20 years. The person who had designed the Focus database was the only one who knew and understood its complexity sufficiently to maintain it. Each time a researcher needed some subset of data to analyze, he would extract it and serve it upon request. Aside from the inefficiency of the process, the person was retiring at a time when hierarchic DBMSs reached the end of their usefulness, Focus experts were already few and expensive and "relational" (read: SQL) was the dominant fad. 

Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

Note: "Then & Now" (T&N) is a new version of what used to be the "Oldies but Goodies" (OBG) series. To demonstrate the superiority of a sound theoretical foundation relative to the industry's fad-driven "cookbook" practices, as well as the evolution/progress of RDM, I am re-visiting my 2000-06 debunkings, bringing them up to my with my knowledge and understanding of today. This will enable you to judge how well my arguments have held up and appreciate the increasing gap between scientific progress and the industry’s stagnation, if not outright regress.

On NULLs and Multi-Table Relvars

(first published 04/05/02)

"I had a question about the missing-values suggestion in PRACTICAL ISSUES IN DATABASE MANAGEMENT, page 234. You write:

"Table operations would have to be modified to yield results with as many tables as there are types of propositions with only known values."

How would this be represented in a language like Tutorial D, where relvars are required to be strongly typed? One possible idea is to make use of type inheritance. Suppose I had a domain of tuple values {x,a,b,c} (all integers, say) where x is not allowed to be missing but a, b, and c are allowed to be missing. Suppose we extended the domains of a, b, and c with an "imaginary" special value that we will never represent, which I will show for diagram purposes only as '?'. Then the domain can be split into parts:

XABC {x,a,b,c} possrep: {X: int, A: int, B: int, C: int}
XAB {x,a,b,'?'} possrep: {X: int, A: int, B: int}
XAC {x,a,'?',c} possrep: {X: int, A: int, C: int}
XBC {x,'?',b,c} possrep: {X: int, B: int, C: int}
XA {x,a,'?','?'} possrep: {X: int, A: int}
XB {x,'?',b,'?'} possrep: {X: int, B: int}
XC {x,'?','?',c} possrep: {X: int, C: int}
X {x,’?','?','?'} possrep: {X: int}

Using Mr. Date's specialization by constraint idea, we can inherit all the subtuple types from the main tuple type. Updates could make a tuple change type. A relation of relations of XABC type could be used to return results of a query. Each relation within the relation would contain one subtype.

However, the exponential explosion of possible subtypes would be very difficult to handle, practically speaking. As you admit in your book, a real DBMS might have to handle thousands of small subtables. This cannot be passed off as an "implementation detail" since table operations "yield results" at the user presentation level. No matter how efficient the underlying system might be, this seems unacceptable. Perhaps we have to fall back on default values after all."

Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

Note: To demonstrate the correctness and stability due to a sound theoretical foundation relative to the industry's fad-driven "cookbook" practices, I am re-publishing as "Oldies But Goodies" material from the old DBDebunk.com (2000-06), so that you can judge for yourself how well my arguments hold up and whether the industry has progressed beyond the misconceptions those arguments were intended to dispel. I may revise, break into parts, and/or add comments and/or references.

In response to a LinkedIn thread where interest was expressed in a "NULL research" project, we re-publish as "Oldies But Goodies" a series of old exchanges with readers reacting to our The Final NULL in the Coffin: A Relational Solution to Missing Data: in Parts 1, 2, 3  we re-published a past exchange between myself and Hugh Darwen with a reader on the pros and cons of our solution vs. Hugh Darwen's "horizontal decomposition" NULLless solution, and in Part 4 my debunking of reactions to an article of mine on the subject which exhibit the confusion inevitably evoked by NULL.

We complete this series with an exchange with a reader who claimed that our criticism applies to SQL's specific implementations of NULL, not to the NULL concept itself. I and David McGoveran explained that the implementation flaws in SQL derive directly from the deeper problems endemic to many-valued logics. 

Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

Note: To demonstrate the correctness and stability of a sound theoretical foundation relative to the industry's fad-driven "cookbook" practices, I am re-publishing as "Oldies But Goodies" material from the old DBDebunk.com (2000-06), so that you can judge for yourself how well my arguments hold up and whether the industry has progressed beyond the misconceptions those arguments were intended to dispel. I may break long pieces into multiple posts, revise, and/or add comments and references.

In response to a LinkedIn exchange we continue the series about missing data, NULL and the RDM. In Parts 1,2 and 3 we re-published a past exchange between myself and Hugh Darwen on the pros and cons of our relational solution to missing data vs. Hugh's "horizontal decomposition".

Here we re-publish my debunking of reactions to an article of mine exhibiting the common confusions evoked by NULL.

Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

“What is the difference between an index and a key? How are they related?”

“There seams to be some confusion between what a Primary Key is, and what an Index is and how they are used. The Primary Key is a logical object. By that I mean that is simply defines a set of properties on one column or a set of columns to require that the columns which make up the primary key are unique and that none of them are null. Because they are unique and not null, these values (or value if your primary key is a single column) can then be used to identify a single row in the table every time. In most if not all database platforms the Primary Key will have an index created on it. An index on the other hand doesn’t define uniqueness. An index is used to more quickly find rows in the table based on the values which are part of the index. When you create an index within the database, you are creating a physical object which is being saved to disk.”

“A primary key by default creates a clustered index. A unique constraint/key by default creates a non-clustered index.”

“An index is a (logically) ordered list of rows. For example, an index on LastName means all values are already sorted in LastName order. Usually index rows contain far fewer columns in them than the table itself (except the clustered index, which is the table). A key is a column or columns that defines the order of an index. For example, on an index ordered by (LastName,FirstName), then LastName and FirstName are the keys. Btw, a primary key is a physical object, not a logical one. The db engine needs physical rows in order to insure unique values in the index.”

--Difference between an index and a key?, SQLTeam.com

I have recently published a paper[1], and posted a multipart series[2] on relational keys. In the latter I stated as follows:

"As a relational feature, keys can only be properly understood within the formal foundation of the RDM, which is simple set theory (SST) expressible in first order predicate logic (FOPL) adapted and applied to database management. Yet that is precisely what is ignored and dismissed in the industry -- including by the authors of SQL[3]."

I have also written extensively on widespread logical-physical confusion (LPC)[4], recently specifically in the key-index context[5]. The replies above are examples -- if any more were needed -- that validate my repeated claim of lack of foundation knowledge in the industry -- can you tell what's wrong with, and what's correct in, them?

Follow @DBDebunk Follow @ThePostWest

There is nothing wrong with Hugo Kornelis' picture of SQL NULL in NULL: The database's black hole. In fact, I recommend the series of which it is one part. It's SQL's picture of how to treat missing data that's wrong.

"Let’s first take a look at what NULL is supposed to be. Here is the definition of NULL from the SQL-2003 standard: null value--A special value that is used to indicate the absence of any data value."

While the absence of a value may be represented by some value at the implementation level, I strongly recommend users not think of NULL as any kind of value at the model level. The problems with NULL stem precisely from the fact that it is not a value, but rather a marker for the absence of a value. NULL value is a contradiction in terms that distracts from the problems.