Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL

One question that I think must be looked into is this: If SQL databases are successful today, is it because: ** of the relational _model_ they are based on?

• of the ease with which SQL can be used from within all programming languages and as an interactive query language?
• The failure or earlier models and the support of major SQL database vendors once it reached critical mass of adoption?

In other words do we have the model, the language, or standardisation to blame/praise for the popularity of the relational model?

I would also like to know the classical arguments against the network model or other "pointer based" models. The only things I know are that:

• using pointers to positions in memory or disk can be messy when data has to be moved around. But then is seems there are several simple ways to solve this, e.g. what I can only call "logical pointers".
• The difficulty of performing adhoc queries. but I want to think that if there is a procedural (query?) language many of the advanced features of SQL e.g. group by and sorting of the data can be done with user-generated procedural code. Then I observe that most databases in the world today are being accessed by asp, php or perl web scripts and only recieve adhoc queries during the development stage. These queries are written by developers who are skilled enough in procedural programming not to have problems if they needed such code to access the data.

Other than that, what's wrong with the network (or similar) models? I have not found a good link to such a discussion though I hear it repeated that there are certain classical arguments against them.

Seun Osewa

Lee Fesperman <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3F7F8E1A.474_at_ix.netcom.com>...
> Seun Osewa wrote:
> > Sometimes I wonder why its so important to model data in the "rela-
> > tional way", to think of data in form of sets of tuples rather than
> > tables or lists or whatever. I mean, though its elegant and based
> > on mathematical principles I would like to know why its the _right_
> > model to follow in designing a DBMS (or database). The way my mind
> > sees it, should we not rather be interested in what works?
>
> Relational is the _right_ model because 'it works'. It's the only truly comprehensive
> data model and subject of decades of research. All other data models have been found to
> be flawed and (nearly) discarded.
Received on Tue Oct 07 2003 - 08:07:33 CEST