Re: Need SQL Server Temp Table equivalent (challenge!)

On 26 Jul 2003, kin_ng5_at_yahoo.com wrote:
> Perhaps I can illustrate this idea with an example.
>
> A typical Product's relation design may include the product
> master, Brand, Subbrand, Brand Extension etc. What happens if
> we don't define Brand, Subbrand, Brand Extension etc but
> instead create a structure such that these kind of
> relationships can be "soft coded" so to speak.

This is, and has been, my point. You aren't using the relational model to constrain the relationships (read what you say, what if we don't create the relationships?). You sacrificed the safety of relational constraints for future flexibility.

> I have always felt that the relation model tend to represent
> what is current and lacks the flexibility of self-changing,

Eh? The main idea is that the relational model, "models" your business.

Its sort of like, if you are selling close, then you model your store to display close. If, tomorrow, you decide to sell coffee, then, you will have to change something about how your store is laid out. Same thing with the relational model.

>
> sort of like the OS's self tuning...

Not sure how you would think that the OS wouldn't protect its internal structures whether it tunes access to them or not.

> That was the idea of our design. Let's face it, the pace of
> change in the current business world is fast and changing a DB
> model is slow, relatively speaking.

I disagree completely. The change to the relational model just usually happens well after the business has already changed.

-- 
Galen Boyer