Re: Can these constraint be implemented in an RDBMS ?

andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk (Tony) wrote:
>andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk (Tony) wrote in message news:<c0e3f26e.0403021220.53efd38e_at_posting.google.com>...
>> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<GdSdncxns7j2Mdnd4p2dnA@golden.net>...
>> > "Tony" <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:c0e3f26e.0403020340.276d887d_at_posting.google.com...
>> > > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
>> news:<FcydneN9COOZk9ndRVn-ug_at_golden.net>...
>> > > > "ben brugman" <ben_at_niethier.nl> wrote in message
>> > > > news:c2094f$q3$1_at_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?
>
>Any serious response to this question? If Oracle and SQL Server
>represent a poor choice of DBMS, and if no product that actually
>exists and can be used by a business is based on the relational model,
>what WOULD be a good choice? If my company employs me to deliver them
Oracle and Sql server are fine choices. Recommending something that doesn't exist except in theory doesn't help much. But then again, you are asking for help on a newsgroup.

>a database on which to run their business, I would be pretty stupid to
>respond "sorry, but right now there is no DBMS on the market that is
>fit to build such a database".

Yes it would, and you would be fired. That's why all these folks work on Oracle and sql server. They remind me of the school teacher from Pink Floyd when they go home to meet their fat and psychopathic wives.

> I agree that Oracle and SQL Server
>(and all other SQL DBMSs) are flawed, but that doesn't make them a
>"poor choice" if in fact there is nothing better available, does it?
>
>Yes, I have heard of Dataphor and am finding out what I can about that
>from the Alphora website, and it looks very intersting. But as far as
>I can see so far, it is NOT (doesn't even claim to be) an RDBMS - it
>isn't a DBMS at all, it is "data access engine" that sits on top of a
>DBMS like ... Oracle or SQL Server. It describes itself as an
>alternative to "the data access and manipulation capabilities of
>..NET", not an alternative to Oracle or SQL Server or any other DBMS.
>
>If I have got it wrong on that (which is quite likely) can someone
>please put me right? Is it that the combination of Dataphor and some
>third party non-relational DBMS are considered to produce a true
>RDBMS?
You don't need a "true" relational database. Go to the Oracle, Sql Server, and UDB, websites and do some investigation. You're wasting time here. Received on Thu Mar 04 2004 - 15:05:44 CET