Re: foundations of relational theory?

>

> Not a very good analogy really. I think you meant to equate Pick to a
> megaphone and relational theory to something far more advanced?

>

> Given that both models have been around for decades I suppose you can
> provide links to some of the many millions of actual implementations
> of true relational database theory so we can compare to see which one
> is the best at meeting real world requirements? If you find you're
> struggling and have to use SQL-relational examples instead I expect
> you'll at least then be able to point to some direct comparisons to
> show how SQL-relational systems are so much more efficient, cost-
> effective - better in *some* way at least? Some example where someone
> switched from SQL to Pick and found it very expensive to do so, or
> maybe where they went the other way and found that the move from Pick
> to SQL allowed them to cut costs, downsize and improve system
> reliability etc., etc..

>

> Or maybe it was meant as a wind-up? I like a good laugh - but maybe
> you can do better. Mildly frustrating. 4/10.

>

Unfortunately your reply proves the analogy, and not the one you presume it be. The word "model" seems to have lost all meaning. Could some one please provide the 3 components of MV/PICK that satisfy the requirements for a data mdoel?

• Structure
• Integrity
• Manipulation

I am not interested in SQL, costs, money, disk frames, IO and blah blah blah. I am trying to learn something here if that's possible.

--
Posted via http://dbforums.com