Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!204.71.34.3!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.netins.net!not-for-mail
From: "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt@tincat-group.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: Can these constraint be implemented in an RDBMS ?
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:13:29 -0600
Organization: netINS InterNetNews site
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <c234ev$g9q$1@news.netins.net>
References: <c2094f$q3$1@reader08.wxs.nl> <FcydneN9COOZk9ndRVn-ug@golden.net> <c0e3f26e.0403020340.276d887d@posting.google.com> <GdSdncxns7j2Mdnd4p2dnA@golden.net> <c0e3f26e.0403021220.53efd38e@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.120.93.7
X-Trace: news.netins.net 1078269215 16698 199.120.93.7 (2 Mar 2004 23:13:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@netins.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:13:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.theory:24323

"Tony" <andrewst@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c0e3f26e.0403021220.53efd38e@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour@golden.net> wrote in message
news:<GdSdncxns7j2Mdnd4p2dnA@golden.net>...
> > "Tony" <andrewst@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c0e3f26e.0403020340.276d887d@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour@golden.net> wrote in message
> >  news:<FcydneN9COOZk9ndRVn-ug@golden.net>...
> > > > "ben brugman" <ben@niethier.nl> wrote in message
> > > > news:c2094f$q3$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
> > > > > The implementation has to be done in Oracle or SQL-server.
> > > >
> > > > This has nothing to with difficulty, but with a poor choice of dbms.
> > >
> > > What would be a good choice?  I understand where you are coming from
> > > (SQL databases are not relational, etc.) but what is the available
> > > alternative?
> >
> > The relational model.
>
> But the relational model isn't a product is it?  You said Oracle and
> SQL-Server are a "poor choice of dbms".  I meant: what would be a good
> choice of dbms - I mean, one that someone could buy, install and use
> this year?

It is a bit sad that the relational model is practically on its last leg
before it even has an implementation, eh?  Or maybe that's the reason ... ?
[Just thought I'd show my true colors in case anyone has not realized that
there are some database theorists that are not relational zealots -- I among
them]  smiles.  --dawn