Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>No, relations describe facts, not things.

That is impressively pointless pedantry even for HN, well done.

>Theoretically it's possible to imagine a normalised relation with 50 columns

Yes, that would be what I said. "You're wrong because exactly what you said is correct!"



No, correctness is not pedantry, except for the ignorant. The database facts are axioms and the facts in query results are theorems -- logical inferences from the axioms. If you don't understand that you have no clue what a relational database is and what a RDBMS does. But hey, you're in the majority.

Any linking of number of columns to normalization is pure nonsense. The only accurate thing that can be said is that if you split a relation into multiple projections, by definition each will have less attributes than the original relation. But this is a triviality and it says nothing about the number of columns in the projected relations.


>No, correctness is not pedantry

Pedantry is though. And that's what that entirely pointless post was.

>Any linking of number of columns to normalization is pure nonsense.

That's what I said, that's the point. Don't jump in to a thread you can't be bothered to read.


Pointless to anybody incapable of getting the point, of which there are too many.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: