Re: Interesting article: In the Beginning: An RDBMS history

paul c wrote:
> x wrote:
> > http://www.teradata.com/t/go.aspx/index.html?id=127057
> >
> >
>
> I notice Colin White mentioned 1,000 pages of SQL standard, which I've
> seen something to the effect of before.
>
> Also read somewhere that nowhere does it mention 'relations'. Is
> anybody able to confirm this?
>
> (If so, I'm not sure why SQL products claim to be relational, unless
> they use tables for the user interface and implement relations under the
> covers which would make sense to me although I doubt if any of them go
> to that trouble. The reason I say this is that I'm pretty darn sure
> I've never seen a relation, except in my mind's eye.)

One can view "relational" on a continous scale. If they satisfy say 10 out of 12 criteria, then one may argue that such is "good enough" to be called relational.

I am still on the fense about whether such matters much in practice. Many in-use schemas are so messed due to bad design and historical cruft up that relational purity is almost an acedemic issue only.

>
> pc

-T- Received on Sun Apr 02 2006 - 08:42:53 CEST