Re: Flamewar object databases vs. relational databases (was: Unknown SQL)

From: Adam Ruth <owski_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:30:12 GMT
Message-ID: <f0f51c80.0106040540.4c463919@posting.google.com>

I'll bite, even though Bob was talking about something completely different.

PostgreSQL - any version
DB/2 - 5.1 + (that I'm sure of though it could have been earlier) I believe Informix and Sybase now also support this, though I'm not sure.

In PostgreSQL

Create table person (columns...);
Create table employee (columns...) inherits person;

Adam Ruth

"Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> wrote in message news:<9fb3pq$43i$06$1_at_news.t-online.com>...
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > >If you use a pure OODBMS, then you have an OO system.
> >
> > I disagree. Since relational supports objects directly, you still have an
OO
> > system. In a strict and precise sense, relational is already an OODBMS.
>
> This is not true.
> Could you please provide evidence by naming vendor and statement to store:
>
> class Person
> class Employee extends Person
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Carl
> ---
> Carl Rosenberger
> db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com
Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 18:30:12 CDT