Re: QUESTION: List array, graph or network model support DB

"David Cressey" <david_at_dcressey.com> wrote in message news:JNGK9.330$0I3.38694_at_petpeeve.ziplink.net...
> > if you mean by "ideal" that it runs on Unix and crashes all the time and
> > needs a bazillion DBA's to keep them running and you want to constantly
> > recover your database and your data files, then you can have ideal.
>
> A little background on my original comment might be in order. I don't
tend
> to use the term "ideal" myself, much.
>
> I was referring to a comment made fairly frequently in this forum, to the
> effect that "A commercial Relational Databse system has never been built."
> These people exclude Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Informix, Interbase, yada
> yada, because all of them fail, in one way or another to live up to the
> "ideal" of a truly relational system. I have a hard time with such
> terminological rigidity, myself.

David,

If some vendor fails to deliver a relational dbms and if as a result the dbms suffers severe problems and draws criticism for those problems, I think it only fair for the vendor who failed to deliver a good product to accept the criticism. I find it perverse to blame the relational model for the vendor's failure to deliver a relational system.

It's not some abstract, unachievable "ideal" that the vendors habitually fail to deliver. It's a relatively simple, practical system with high quality and high utility.

I call a dirigible a "dirigible", a rocket a "rocket" and a turbojet a "turbojet". I apologize if you have difficulty with such terminological rigidity. Received on Sun Dec 15 2002 - 02:01:14 CET