Re: Relationals vs. Objects Databases I

In article <6a1pou$ok8_at_news3.euro.net>, Richard Ronteltap <R.Ronteltap_at_iris.nl> writes

>>> The relations between these smashed bits are not part of the model.
>>
>>If you'll define these relations you will have them. And they will be
>>handled better then by ODBMS.
>
>
>Where do you 'define' then in the relational model or programming language.
>Sure, you can write some algebraic or SQL statements, but they are
>detached from the data, not part of the relational model.

The relationships between entities are generally not defined, except where declarative referential integrity is used. That's one of the major strengths of an RDBMS - you don't need a "physical" link in order to query data.

Perhaps you can clarify how an OODBMS would model relationships? I presume it would be by physically linking them with pointers in some way?

>
>>> SQL and relational algebra are computationally incomplete and
>>> there is no fitting alternative that is.
>>
>>The same for the most OO languages and OO approach in general.
>
>
>No. All OO programming languages are computationally complete
>(only requires arrays, if and goto (loops)). OO centainly 'fits' the way
>people think about problems.

In practice, SQL seems complete enough in my experience.

-- 
Jeremy Rickard

(To email, change "SPAM" to "jbdr" in address.)