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

paul c wrote:
> I'm darned if I know what a "relationship between tables" is unless
> it's another table.

In my experience, it's rather common to use that phrase for foreign keys.

> For that matter, I don't know what the sql standard
> would mean by "table" (assuming it uses that word). I've assumed that
> it doesn't stand for a relation partly because it allows duplicates and
> nulls. Without those differences, I imagine an sql table still couldn't
> stand for any relation we choose because at least when I was using it
> ten or more years ago a row-column intersection contained only a single
> value, ie. some relations can't be expressed as one table.

Hm?

-- 
Jon