From: paulwb@earthlink.net (Paul) Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle Subject: Re: Definition of 'Relational' Database Date: 9 Sep 2002 13:57:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 26 Message-ID: <60fbef86.0209091257.34399e82@posting.google.com> References: <4d814faa.0209071121.6bc27d9a@posting.google.com> <4d814faa.0209081213.26f098a0@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.140.250.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1031605075 21006 127.0.0.1 (9 Sep 2002 20:57:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Sep 2002 20:57:55 GMT vk02720@my-deja.com (vk02720) wrote in message news:<4d814faa.0209081213.26f098a0@posting.google.com>... > unknown wrote in message news:... > > On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 21:21:53 +0200, vk02720 wrote: > > > > > Why exactly is a Relational DBMS called "Relational" ? > > > > > > TIA > > > > A not-too-long-winded answer would be something along these lines: > > > > In an RDBMS the tables (that hold data as opposed to the database that > > holds tables) often have a certain relationship. If you look at an > > old-fashioned entity relationship diagram you can easily spot the > > relation by looking at how the tables have been wired together using > > keys. > > > "Relationships" amongst entities are there in other databases as well > - The Hierarchical model and the Network model. They are just > implemented differently - by using 'pointers' in one entity pointing > to the other entity. I would suggest works by Fabian Pascal or C.J. Date for a detailed answer to your question. http://www.firstsql.com/dbdebunk/ Paul