Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational?

From: Craig Alexander Morrison <reply_at_newsgroups.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:30:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4167b557_at_212.67.96.135>


NO!

SQL NO! End of debate. (vbg)

Check out www.dbdebunk.com

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison


"Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
news:hqd6kc.4go.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...

> It said often here that no commercially available DBMS is truly
relational,
> but I haven't seen a succinct list of reasons. What are they?
>
> One that I have gleaned from lurking is that the DBMS's allow duplicates,
as
> in:
>
> CREATE TABLE AnyTable (col1 char(1), col2 char(1), col3 char(1));
> INSERT INTO AnyTable (col1,col2,col3) VALUES ('A','B','C');
> INSERT INTO AnyTable (col1,col2,col3) VALUES ('A','B','C');
>
> The table create specifies no constraints, and so the next two insert
> statements are both allowed. The objection to this seems to be that the
> RDM requires an implied unique constraint on all columns of all tables.
> Because such a constraint is not present, they are not truly relational.
>
> Is that right?
>
> What are some of the other objections?
>
> We could probably have the same discussion re: Structured Query Language
is
> not relational.
>
> --
> Kenneth Downs
> Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
> email me
Received on Sat Oct 09 2004 - 11:30:14 CEST

Original text of this message