home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
tsql
/
doc
/
tsql.mail
/
000074_jcliffor@is-4.stern.nyu.edu _Thu Apr 8 10:34:47 1993.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1996-01-31
|
2KB
Received: from IS-4.STERN.NYU.EDU by optima.cs.arizona.edu (5.65c/15) via SMTP
id AA19565; Thu, 8 Apr 1993 07:27:18 MST
Received: by is-4.stern.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
id AA11948; Thu, 8 Apr 93 10:34:50 EDT
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 10:34:47 EDT
From: Jim Clifford <jcliffor@is-4.stern.nyu.edu>
To: tsql@cs.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: Benchmark
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.734279687.jcliffor@is-4.stern.nyu.edu>
I have no opinion one way or the other about the length of the
attribute and/or relation names, so will go along with the majority
consensus on this one.
However, my message about keys appears to have been misinterpreted.
I am definitely NOT in favor of treating Name and Dept as time
invariant keys -- I believe that this unfairly biases the benchmark to
tuple-time-stamped models. Insofar as there is any "definition" of the
concept of "key" in the proposal so far, it merely requires that the
attribute be a key in all snapshots derived from the historical
relation. I believe that there is (a) consensus on this notion
of a key, as well as (b) widespread confusion that this definitoin
requires the key attribute(s) to be time invariant --it does not.
--jim--
************************************************************************
Jim Clifford jclifford@stern.nyu.edu
Associate Professor TEL: (212) 998-0803
Department of Information Systems FAX: (212) 995-4228
Leonard N. Stern School of Business
New York University
Management Education Center
44 West 4th Street, Suite 9-74
New York, NY 10012-1126
************************************************************************