"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4ae75b04@news.povray.org...
> I.e., in relational database theory, a join gives you each row of the 
> first table concatenated with each row of the second table. Then you 
> select the rows where the keys are equal, then you project over the rows 
> you actually want. Those are the three basic reading operations in 
> relational theory. The only reason "inner join" and "outer join" exist is 
> that people don't want to actually normalize their databases the way that 
> works well with relational theory.
>
> SQL kind of weirds up the syntax some, but that doesn't mean you should 
> use an entirely different (and incorrect) word for the operation. :-) If 
> you're going to ask for a different word, ask for one that doesn't mean 
> something wrong. :-)

I do sometimes miss the old days where I had a separate disk file for every 
type of data, multiple record formats with different numbers of fields and 
types of data in every file, even more separate files with indexing 
information that had to be kept in sync by the same code that acted as the 
application front end, manual locking of records and files and--

Hmm... actually, I don't think I miss that at all, come to think of it.

:D

Post a reply to this message