A better SQL implementation?
From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 7 Jun 2006 06:58:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1149688712.592490.164980_at_y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Below is a link to a friend's website who developped his own implementation of SQL considering that all current SQL implementations are unefficient. This SQL is embedded into his database engine (Atlas) Atlas defined a DBMS *set system* as a reference to set theory.
Date: 7 Jun 2006 06:58:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1149688712.592490.164980_at_y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Below is a link to a friend's website who developped his own implementation of SQL considering that all current SQL implementations are unefficient. This SQL is embedded into his database engine (Atlas) Atlas defined a DBMS *set system* as a reference to set theory.
As an indicative annotation, he was a part of the developping team that worked on System-R.
He has an interesting truth based historical perspective about evolution of SQL implementations from early days and supports that SQL should have been implemented otherwise. Here's a link to a white paper put on his website. I would like your opinion on that.
http://www.armadillo.fr/english/whitepapers/WHITEPAPER_2004.htm Received on Wed Jun 07 2006 - 15:58:32 CEST