Re: Relational Databases and Their Guts
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:01:15 -0400
Message-ID: <0oxIa.232$xR6.31623232_at_mantis.golden.net>
"Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message
news:af3d9224.0306191224.566ed1d_at_posting.google.com...
> > For
> > instance, he did not say there is a difference between relational dbmses
and
> > relational databases.
>
> I did say there was a difference!
Not using the above words, you didn't. Since your assertion was confused and your apparent meaning simply wrong, you will have to forgive us if we guessed wrong trying to figure out what the hell you were trying to say.
> > > One can start with the difference between a database and a database
> > > management system. A database is a collection of axioms; in other
words it
> > > is a set of known or true (believed to be true) facts that are
properly
> > > represented for machine processing.
>
> Properly presented for machine processing is not necessary to have a
> database. The criteria is actually that it is categorized in some
> way, and that makes it easier to put into a machine.
Huh? How is that different from representing the data suitably for machine processing?
> However, one can
> generally assumes the existence of some mess that is not, after 40
> years, in a computer in some way, is in fact a mess.
Was that a sentence? Or were you demonstrating what a mess is?
> So, I use the
> term "mess" to describe non-automated database management systems, I
> am in fact using the term correctly. It's not a database if its not
> in a computer.
I don't think you will generate a consensus that a database requires a computer. A database requires organization and structure, but I see no reason to consider a computer an essential ingredient.
> Since you cannot have a database without a system to
> management,
Again, a database requires organization and structure. I do not think a management system is required for a database; although, a management system makes a database much more accessible and useful.
> you can actually use the terms somewhat interchangably,
People often interchange these when careless and sloppy. This does not mean one can really interchange them without the potential for confusion. It's much better to speak with precision.
> so
> long as you do not complicate with the case of one database server
> software running more than one database, which was in fact, irrelevant
> to the question he was asking!
And irrelevant to the difference between a dbms and a database, and irrelevant to the responses your absurd statement garnered.
> If I don't know what I'm talking about, you are completely irrelevant.
I fail to see how your ignorance has any bearing on anybody's relevance but your own.
> > As absurd as it sounds, it appears he might think
> > "rdbms" means something other than "relational database management
system."
>
> Hardly.
>
> > If Todd really wanted to make that distinction, he could have simply
said
> > there is a difference between a dbms and a database, which is pretty
obvious
>
> That fogs the issue altogether.
I can see you are a little foggy. Apparently, Paul could see it too.
> The issue that I wanted to bring to
> his attention was that so-called relational databases are not actually
> relational
Relational databases are relational. Relational dbmses are relational too. Databases are different from dbmses, but that is the only distinction in what you originally said.
Calling a non-relational dbms relational is simply ignorance as is blaming "relational dbmses" or relational anything for the flaws a product introduces by relational infidelity.
>, in the theoretical sense, as you yourself has argued.
You apparently lack the ability to comprehend my arguments. Of course, I don't really expect salesmen to comprehend technology all that well.
> I
> at least gave the guy some places to start.
You gave him confused misinformation. That hardly counts as helpful.
I corrected your ignorant rant before it caused him too much harm. Received on Fri Jun 20 2003 - 07:01:15 CEST