Hello,

Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, Integrated database. I am explaining the proposal with the use of example. 
Example: We will have a master table say CustMast and a transaction table say salesOrder table.
View of CustMast:
CustCode    Number(5),
CustName  Varchar(30),
CustAdrsLine1   Varchar,
CustAdrsLine2   varchar  etc.
View of SalesOrder:
Sordno    Number(8),
Sorddt     date,
CustCode  Number(5)  -  present way of defining.
 Proposed way is:
CustCode Object CustMast.     --- New data type to be introduced called “O” Object and create table definition to be modified whenever data type is ‘O’, it will accept object name (in this case table name). Here I want to inform data definition that field and its data type is already defined in master table and use the same data type here and both tables are linked with this field.
We will be using same field name in both tables if not along with table name field name is to be accepted in create table definition.
Advantages: 
1.       Now database knows that custcode in salesorder is a foreign key, a table constraint can be created. It also knows that index to be created on this field.
2.       In present situation select statement for selecting values from join of both tables will be
Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1 
from salesorder, custmast 
where salesorder.custcode=custmast.custcode.
3.       In proposed way we can write this statement as:
Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1 
from salesorder  (with proper changes in program which pickup values from select statement.
4.       Field can be from another table in same database or from Excel sheet column.
5.       Views need not be created as all tables are properly linked with each other in an application. 
6.       This is only first step and many advantages can be a result of brainstorm. 
7.    This will change RDBMS, Tools and ERP to next generation.

For any clarifications pl contact. Pl give your feedback.

Regards Many,
Vijay Ghatpande.
Cell: +91 9822456142.

I am probably just being thick, but how is your idea different from create domain:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createdomain.html


From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 2:20 AM
To: pgsql hackers
Subject: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrated database
Importance: High

Hello,

Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, Integrated database. I am explaining the proposal with the use of example.
Example: We will have a master table say CustMast and a transaction table say salesOrder table.
View of CustMast:
CustCode    Number(5),
CustName  Varchar(30),
CustAdrsLine1   Varchar,
CustAdrsLine2   varchar  etc.
View of SalesOrder:
Sordno    Number(8),
Sorddt     date,
CustCode  Number(5)  -  present way of defining.
Proposed way is:
CustCode Object CustMast.     --- New data type to be introduced called "O" Object and create table definition to be modified whenever data type is 'O', it will accept object name (in this case table name). Here I want to inform data definition that field and its data type is already defined in master table and use the same data type here and both tables are linked with this field.
We will be using same field name in both tables if not along with table name field name is to be accepted in create table definition.
Advantages:

1.       Now database knows that custcode in salesorder is a foreign key, a table constraint can be created. It also knows that index to be created on this field.

2.       In present situation select statement for selecting values from join of both tables will be

Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1

from salesorder, custmast

where salesorder.custcode=custmast.custcode.

3.       In proposed way we can write this statement as:

Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1

from salesorder  (with proper changes in program which pickup values from select statement.

4.       Field can be from another table in same database or from Excel sheet column.

5.       Views need not be created as all tables are properly linked with each other in an application.

6.       This is only first step and many advantages can be a result of brainstorm.

7.    This will change RDBMS, Tools and ERP to next generation.



For any clarifications pl contact. Pl give your feedback.



Regards Many,

Vijay Ghatpande.

Cell: +91 9822456142.

Create domain is only useful for abstracting common constraints on fields into single location for maintenance. It may not be useful to link tables.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 4:04 pm
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
To: "'ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net'" <ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net>, pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> I am probably just being thick, but how is your idea different 
> from create domain:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createdomain.html
> 
> 
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 2:20 AM
> To: pgsql hackers
> Subject: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards 
> Intelligent,integrated database
> Importance: High
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, Integrated 
> database. I am explaining the proposal with the use of example.
> Example: We will have a master table say CustMast and a 
> transaction table say salesOrder table.
> View of CustMast:
> CustCode    Number(5),
> CustName  Varchar(30),
> CustAdrsLine1   Varchar,
> CustAdrsLine2   varchar  etc.
> View of SalesOrder:
> Sordno    Number(8),
> Sorddt     date,
> CustCode  Number(5)  -  present way of defining.
> Proposed way is:
> CustCode Object CustMast.     --- New data type to be introduced 
> called "O" Object and create table definition to be modified 
> whenever data type is 'O', it will accept object name (in this 
> case table name). Here I want to inform data definition that field 
> and its data type is already defined in master table and use the 
> same data type here and both tables are linked with this field.
> We will be using same field name in both tables if not along with 
> table name field name is to be accepted in create table definition.
> Advantages:
> 
> 1.       Now database knows that custcode in salesorder is a 
> foreign key, a table constraint can be created. It also knows that 
> index to be created on this field.
> 
> 2.       In present situation select statement for selecting 
> values from join of both tables will be
> 
> Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1
> 
> from salesorder, custmast
> 
> where salesorder.custcode=custmast.custcode.
> 
> 3.       In proposed way we can write this statement as:
> 
> Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1
> 
> from salesorder  (with proper changes in program which pickup 
> values from select statement.
> 
> 4.       Field can be from another table in same database or from 
> Excel sheet column.
> 
> 5.       Views need not be created as all tables are properly 
> linked with each other in an application.
> 
> 6.       This is only first step and many advantages can be a 
> result of brainstorm.
> 
> 7.    This will change RDBMS, Tools and ERP to next generation.
> 
> 
> 
> For any clarifications pl contact. Pl give your feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards Many,
> 
> Vijay Ghatpande.
> 
> Cell: +91 9822456142.
> 

Hello

there was a very similar design in ANSI SQL 99. I have documentation
only in Czech, but probably you can find a sources about OOP part in
ANSI/SQL.

CREATE TABLE children(
  id int primary key,
  parent ref(parents)
  name ..
  ...

and you can write queries like

SELECT name, parent->name FROM children

Regards

Pavel Stehule


see a object support in ANSI/SQL - keywords ref, scope,

2010/12/1  <ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net>:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, Integrated database.
> I am explaining the proposal with the use of example.
>
> Example: We will have a master table say CustMast and a transaction table
> say salesOrder table.
>
> View of CustMast:
>
> CustCode    Number(5),
>
> CustName  Varchar(30),
>
> CustAdrsLine1   Varchar,
>
> CustAdrsLine2   varchar  etc.
>
> View of SalesOrder:
>
> Sordno    Number(8),
>
> Sorddt     date,
>
> CustCode  Number(5)  -  present way of defining.
>
>  Proposed way is:
>
> CustCode Object CustMast.     --- New data type to be introduced called “O”
> Object and create table definition to be modified whenever data type is ‘O’,
> it will accept object name (in this case table name). Here I want to inform
> data definition that field and its data type is already defined in master
> table and use the same data type here and both tables are linked with this
> field.
>
> We will be using same field name in both tables if not along with table name
> field name is to be accepted in create table definition.
>
> Advantages:
>
> 1.       Now database knows that custcode in salesorder is a foreign key, a
> table constraint can be created. It also knows that index to be created on
> this field.
>
> 2.       In present situation select statement for selecting values from
> join of both tables will be
>
> Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1
>
> from salesorder, custmast
>
> where salesorder.custcode=custmast.custcode.
>
> 3.       In proposed way we can write this statement as:
>
> Select sordno, sorddt, custcode, custname, custadrsline1
>
> from salesorder  (with proper changes in program which pickup values from
> select statement.
>
> 4.       Field can be from another table in same database or from Excel
> sheet column.
>
> 5.       Views need not be created as all tables are properly linked with
> each other in an application.
>
> 6.       This is only first step and many advantages can be a result of
> brainstorm.
>
> 7.    This will change RDBMS, Tools and ERP to next generation.
>
>
>
> For any clarifications pl contact. Pl give your feedback.
>
>
>
> Regards Many,
>
> Vijay Ghatpande.
>
> Cell: +91 9822456142.

ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net writes:
> Create domain is only useful for abstracting common constraints on fields into single location for maintenance. It may not be useful to link tables.

It's still unclear what this does that you don't get from inheritance,
typed tables, use of a table's rowtype as a field type, or CREATE TABLE
LIKE.  This isn't exactly virgin territory.

			regards, tom lane

On 12/01/2010 09:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net writes:
>> Create domain is only useful for abstracting common constraints on fields into single location for maintenance. It may not be useful to link tables.
> It's still unclear what this does that you don't get from inheritance,
> typed tables, use of a table's rowtype as a field type, or CREATE TABLE
> LIKE.  This isn't exactly virgin territory.
>
> 			

Yeah. Actually, the whole thing reminded me somewhat of the pre-RDBMS 
data stores I worked with 25 years or so ago. "Those who cannot remember 
history are doomed to repeat it."

cheers

andrew

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:19:32PM +0500, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, Integrated database.

You're implying that databases are stupid and incoherent.  This is
*not* a great way to start.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Be positive ... Negative thoughts are not good...

----- Original Message -----
From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:42 pm
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
To: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
Cc: pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:19:32PM +0500, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, 
> Integrated database.
> 
> You're implying that databases are stupid and incoherent.  This is
> *not* a great way to start.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> -- 
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
> Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
> Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
> iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
> 
> Remember to vote!
> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> 

My point exactly.  You started off with high negativity, and you
should not expect good results from same.

Cheers,
David.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 08:15:25PM +0500, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net wrote:
> Be positive ... Negative thoughts are not good...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:42 pm
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
> To: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
> Cc: pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:19:32PM +0500, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, 
> > Integrated database.
> > 
> > You're implying that databases are stupid and incoherent.  This is
> > *not* a great way to start.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > David.
> > -- 
> > David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
> > Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
> > Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
> > iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
> > 
> > Remember to vote!
> > Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 09:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net writes:
>>> Create domain is only useful for abstracting common constraints on fields into single location for maintenance. It may not be useful to link tables.
>> It's still unclear what this does that you don't get from inheritance,
>> typed tables, use of a table's rowtype as a field type, or CREATE TABLE
>> LIKE.  This isn't exactly virgin territory.
>> 
>> 			
> 
> Yeah. Actually, the whole thing reminded me somewhat of the pre-RDBMS data stores I worked with 25 years or so ago. "Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Something that did what Pavel mentioned:

SELECT name, parent->name FROM children;

would be very useful. It means you no longer have to write explicit joins (or perhaps more accurately, you no longer have to specify exactly how to join the two tables).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net

No negativity. This world is beautiful, I want to make it more beautiful. Together we can make it, I am sure.

Cheers,
Vijay.        
Experience the excellence


----- Original Message -----
From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
To: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
Cc: pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> My point exactly.  You started off with high negativity, and you
> should not expect good results from same.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 08:15:25PM +0500, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net wrote:
> > Be positive ... Negative thoughts are not good...
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
> > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:42 pm
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards 
> Intelligent,integrateddatabase> To: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
> > Cc: pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> > 
> > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:19:32PM +0500, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net 
> wrote:> > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > Here is the proposal:  My 1st step towards Intelligent, 
> > > Integrated database.
> > > 
> > > You're implying that databases are stupid and incoherent.  
> This is
> > > *not* a great way to start.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > David.
> > > -- 
> > > David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
> > > Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
> > > Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
> > > iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
> > > 
> > > Remember to vote!
> > > Consider donating to Postgres: 
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate> > 
> > > -- 
> > > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > > To make changes to your subscription:
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> 
> -- 
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
> Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
> Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
> iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
> 
> Remember to vote!
> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> 

> Something that did what Pavel mentioned:
> 
> SELECT name, parent->name FROM children;
> 
> would be very useful. It means you no longer have to write explicit joins (or perhaps more accurately, you no longer have to specify exactly how to join the two tables).

Already exists:
http://htsql.org/


-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com

The aim of HTSQL is only to avoid joins.
Need to setup HTSQL server. On startup introspects table relationships. Relationships are edges in a graph model. Processor translates graph requests into SQL.  
Some limitations: No custom commands, primitive formatters. Query results are not streaming. No way to override catalog configuration.

My proposal has no limitations. Its primary aim is to make database intelligent. Avoiding joins is one of the aim and not the only aim. I am sure that the ultimate output of my proposal is NEXT GENERATION DATABASE. It will change database and ERP world.

regards,
Vijay.
Experience the excellence....



----- Original Message -----
From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:08 am
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
To: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> 
> > Something that did what Pavel mentioned:
> > 
> > SELECT name, parent->name FROM children;
> > 
> > would be very useful. It means you no longer have to write 
> explicit joins (or perhaps more accurately, you no longer have to 
> specify exactly how to join the two tables).
> 
> Already exists:
> http://htsql.org/
> 
> 
> -- 
>                                  -- Josh Berkus
>                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
>                                     http://www.pgexperts.com
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> 

If possible can you provide glimpses of History. Corrected History will always help for future. Success rate also increases if we could avoid mistakes we made in history.

regards,
Vijay.
Experience the Excellence......

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> 
> 
> On 12/01/2010 09:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net writes:
> >> Create domain is only useful for abstracting common constraints 
> on fields into single location for maintenance. It may not be 
> useful to link tables.
> > It's still unclear what this does that you don't get from 
> inheritance,> typed tables, use of a table's rowtype as a field 
> type, or CREATE TABLE
> > LIKE.  This isn't exactly virgin territory.
> >
> >                 	
> 
> Yeah. Actually, the whole thing reminded me somewhat of the pre-
> RDBMS 
> data stores I worked with 25 years or so ago. "Those who cannot 
> remember 
> history are doomed to repeat it."
> 
> cheers
> 
> andrew
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> 

I know world's population. Non of the person thinks alike and still many peoples goal can be the same. Nothing is virgin in this world. If someone thinks like that then it is a mistake.  My aim is to prove that Postgresql can be the great leader if we put natural intelligence in database which is missing all over.

Regards,
Vijay.
Experience the Excellence......


----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrateddatabase
To: ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>

> ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net writes:
> > Create domain is only useful for abstracting common constraints 
> on fields into single location for maintenance. It may not be 
> useful to link tables.
> 
> It's still unclear what this does that you don't get from inheritance,
> typed tables, use of a table's rowtype as a field type, or CREATE 
> TABLELIKE.  This isn't exactly virgin territory.
> 
>                	regards, tom lane
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> 

I know world's population. Non of the person thinks alike and still many
peoples goal can be the same. Nothing is virgin in this world. If
someone thinks like that then it is a mistake.  My aim is to prove that
Postgresql can be the great leader if we put natural intelligence in
database which is missing all over.

And what is that intelligence?

<ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net> wrote:
 
> If possible can you provide glimpses of History.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigational_database
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARK_IV_%28software%29
 
I don't want to go back there, myself.  YMMV.
 
-Kevin

On 12/02/2010 12:44 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> <ghatpande(at)vsnl(dot)net>  wrote:
>
>> If possible can you provide glimpses of History.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigational_database
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARK_IV_%28software%29
>
> I don't want to go back there, myself.  YMMV.
>
>

Me either. BTDTGTTS. :-)

cheers

andrew