Re: Can these constraint be implemented in an RDBMS ?

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<4eednTzidOWx-NvdRVn-tw_at_golden.net>...
> "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:c0e3f26e.0403021220.53efd38e_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:<GdSdncxns7j2Mdnd4p2dnA_at_golden.net>...
> > > "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:c0e3f26e.0403020340.276d887d_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:<FcydneN9COOZk9ndRVn-ug_at_golden.net>...
> > > > > "ben brugman" <ben_at_niethier.nl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:c2094f$q3$1_at_reader08.wxs.nl...
> > > > > > The implementation has to be done in Oracle or SQL-server.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has nothing to with difficulty, but with a poor choice of dbms.
> > > >
> > > > What would be a good choice? I understand where you are coming from
> > > > (SQL databases are not relational, etc.) but what is the available
> > > > alternative?
> > >
> > > The relational model.
> >
> > But the relational model isn't a product is it?
>
> I'm sorry. Did I get lost? Is this comp.databases.products?

Well, I was responding directly to your statement that Oracle and SQL Server are a "poor choice of dbms".

If they (the PRODUCTS called Oracle and SQL Server) are a "poor" choice, then presumably there is an alternative PRODUCT that is "better". If no such product exists, your response was, shall we say, unhelpful? One can only choose what one can actually get!

If what you really meant was "discussions of what can be done with Oracle, SQL Server or any other product have no place in comp.databases.theory" then that would be fair comment. But you didn't say that! Received on Thu Mar 04 2004 - 16:11:08 CET