The following posts have been re-written to bring in line with the McGoveran formalization and interpretation of Codd's true RDM. Re-reading is strongly recommended.
"But the core Information Principle (IP) of the RDM mandates that all information in a relational database be represented explicitly and in exactly one way -- as values
of relation attributes defined on domains. The difference between
relation names is, thus, meaningful information, the representation of
which violates the IP and the RDM, for which reason it is inaccessible
to the DBMS: consider the candidate tuple {v1,v2}
-- it is impossible for the DBMS to know to which relation it belongs
based on the relation and attribute names because it does not understand
semantics!" Database Design Relation Predicates and “Identical Relations”
"Some
set defining properties are formed as the disjunction of two or more
properties (a kind of relationship between two common properties). These
disjuncts, taken together, are meaning criteria. Each meaning
criterion (an individual disjunct) induces a partitioning of a set into
two subsets, those that meet the criterion and those that do not.
Alternatively, we can say that each meaning criterion serves to
differentiate a possible subset of a set from other subsets of the set
(some of the possible subsets will be disjoint, while others not). Each
of the possible subsets of the set is then defined by (“inherits”):
The defining properties of the set conjoined with at least one meaning
criterion (that or those becoming the defining property, or properties,
respectively, specific to the proper subset)." Meaning Criteria and Entity Supertype-Subtypes
"Although they are no longer used, inquiries about them persist and with the current proliferation of non-relational products (e.g., NoSQL, graph DBMSs) there is value in understanding them. The closest the industry came to implementing the RDM is SQL which, despite its poor relational fidelity, proved much superior relative to the complexity and inflexibility of preceding DBMSs. But the rules still expose poor relational fidelity of SQL DBMS's that have not been addressed for four decades, while new RDM violations were introduced.
We offer here our clarifications on the rules. For each rule, we:
- Explain its intended objective;
- Offer clarifications, some of which reflect our current understanding of the RDM -- distinct from conventional wisdom -- based on its dual theoretical foundation and a careful analysis of Codd's work;" --Interpreting Codd's 12 Rules
1. Database truth of the week
"Within the database field, it is common to refer to three “level” of description: conceptual, logical, and physical. Both the logical level and the physical level are formal systems. By contrast, the conceptual level is typically an informal system and refers to the subject of the database.
The conceptual language is a subject language, in the terminology of formal systems. The conceptual level identifies the concepts to be formally represented by the logical and physical levels, and how users think and talk about those concepts. This level corresponds only informally to the so-called “conceptual schema” of earlier approaches to information management, which emphasized the capture of conceptual information using various techniques including diagrams and documentation having various degrees of formality, but not forming a strictly formal system themselves." -- David McGoveran
2. What's wrong with this database picture?
I re-wrote two older debunkings to bring them in line with the McGoveran formalization and interpretation of Codd's true RDM. Re-reads are recommended.
"Can you have 2 tables, VIEWS and DOWNLOADS, with identical structure in a good DB schema (item_id, user_id, time). Some of the records will be identical but their meaning will be different depending on which table they are in. The "views" table is updated any time a user views an item for the first time. The "downloads" table is updated any time a user downloads an item for the first time. Both of the tables can exist without the other ..."
"I have a database for a school ... [with] are numerous tables obviously but consider these:
CONTACT - all contacts (students, faculty) has fields such as LAST, FIRST, MI, ADDR, CITY, STATE, ZIP, EMAIL;
FACULTY - hire info, login/password for electronic timesheet login, foreign key to CONTACT;
STUDENT - medical comments, current grade, foreign key to CONTACT.
Do you think it is a good idea to have a single table hold such info? Or, would you have had the tables FACULTY and STUDENT store LAST, FIRST, ADDR and other fields? ..."
Here's what's wrong with last week's picture, namely:
"Per Date’s AN INTRODUCTION TO DATABASE SYSTEMS, Date & Darwen’s DATABASES, TYPES, AND THE RELATIONAL MODEL, and related references, the features of a relational database are values, types, attributes, tuples, relations, relation-valued variables, operators, and constraints.
- A type is a set of values and related operators.
- An attribute is a name, value, type triple.
- A tuple is a set of attributes.
- A relation is a set of tuples with a given heading.
- A relation-valued variable (known as a relvar) is a persistent variable whose time-varying value is a relation." --Dave Voorhis, Computer scientist; lead developer of Rel, a true relational database system, Quora.com
This is more or less the conventional wisdom, which is nothing like the true RDM envisioned by Codd [1].
Note: This was originally a post at AllAnalytics, which is no longer exists, so some links to other posts there no longer work, but I left them in to alert the reader that I have written on those specific subjects. Other links work.
A new study finding that "non-relational database management systems now
comprising 70% of analytics data sources" attributes their popularity
to "superiority" over RDBMSs in satisfying analytics needs. There are good
reasons to be skeptical of such findings, but even if this one were
true, the arguments advanced in support of the claim are rooted in the usual misconceptions due to poor foundation knowledge debunked by this
blog. Let's see.
1. Database Truth of the Week
"A formal system is a systematic way of representing something. We call that something the subject and often refer to it as the “subject system”, although it might not be “systematic” in any sense at all. By contrast we call the formal system the object system -- a system of abstract “objects”.
Representing a subject with a formal system allows us to reason about it without getting trapped in ambiguities, or circular arguments. The formal system becomes a theory about that portion of the subject that has been represented and when that portion is faithfully represented by the theory, we say that portion is a model of the theory.There are at least three distinct uses of languages necessary to use or apply any formal system that correspond to the three distinct ways in which we need to discuss and use formal systems. It is standard to refer to these three uses by different names and as if they were distinct languages: subject, object and meta-language." --David McGoveran
Ed. Note: In the database context, the subject language expresses the conceptual model; the object language expresses the logical model; the data model is the meta-language that expresses the relationship between object and subject.
2. What's Wrong With This Database Picture?
"Per Date’s AN INTRODUCTION TO DATABASE SYSTEMS, Date & Darwen’s DATABASES, TYPES AND THE RELATIONAL MODEL and related references, the features of a relational database are values, types, attributes, tuples, relations, relation-valued variables, operators, and constraints.
- A type is a set of values and related operators.
- An attribute is a name, value, type triple.
- A tuple is a set of attributes.
- A relation is a set of tuples with a given heading.
- A relation-valued variable (known as a relvar) is a persistent variable whose time-varying value is a relation." --Dave Voorhis (Computer scientist; lead developer of Rel, a true relational database system), --What are the features of a relational database?, Quora.com
Note: Some of the References have been re-written to bring them into line with the McGoveran formalization and interpretation [1] of Codd's real RDM -- re-reading is recommended.
Here's what's wrong with the picture of two weeks ago, namely:
"In SQL RDBMSes (such as MS SQL Server and Oracle] tables are permently stored relations, where the column names defined in the data dictionary form the "heading" and the rows are the "tuples" of the relation."
"A relation can be represented by a table in database. A relation in the context of modeling a problem will include the fields and possibly the identification of fields which have relationships with other relations..."
"Put simply, a "relation" is a table, the heading being the definition of the structure and the rows being the data."
"In simple English: relation is data in tabular format with fixed number of columns and data type of each column. This can be a table, a view, a result of a subquery or a function etc."
"A relation is a table, which is a set of data. A table is the result of a query."
--What is a relation in database terminology?, StackOverflow.com
1. Database Truth of the Week
"Codd's original 'normal form' in 1969-70 is not equivalent to the current 1NF. The former and 'normalization' were tied to Codd's first definition of join in 1969. Multiple normal forms (1NF-5NF) and 'further normalization' are a consequence of Codd's re-definition of join in 1970 as the one of today. Once 1NF and further normalization to at least 2NF have been introduced, 'the one normal form' makes no longer sense. Thus, there is no way to answer "what is the difference between the normal form and 1NF" without taking into account the definition of join, and -- if defined as we now do -- no way to understand the former, except to say that it was to the 1969-70 join what the 5NF is to the current join.That is one reason I personally strongly believe that while relations are at least in 1NF -- a relation that is not, cannot be represented formally as a relation, nor do the formal operators of the relational algebra work correctly otherwise -- even this is insufficient and formal relations must be in 5NF. Otherwise put, there is no such thing as a non-5NF database relation." --David McGoveran
2. What's Wrong With This Database Picture?
"A relation is a data structure which consists of a heading and an unordered set of tuples which share the same type", according to Wikipedia on 'Relation (database)'."
"In SQL RDBMSes (such as MS SQL Server and Oracle] tables are permanently stored relations, where the column names defined in the data dictionary form the "heading" and the rows are the "tuples" of the relation."
"A relation can be represented by a table in database. A relation in the context of modeling a problem will include the fields and possibly the identification of fields which have relationships with other relations..."
"Put simply, a "relation" is a table, the heading being the definition of the structure and the rows being the data."
"In simple English: relation is data in tabular format with fixed number of columns and data type of each column. This can be a table, a view, a result of a subquery or a function etc."
"A relation is a table, which is a set of data. A table is the result of a query." --What is a relation in database terminology?, StackOverflow.com
