Re: Interesting article: In the Beginning: An RDBMS history

From: <jonathan.leffler_at_gmail.com>
Date: 3 Apr 2006 20:40:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1144122058.445996.9640_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

paul c wrote:
> I notice Colin White mentioned 1,000 pages of SQL standard, which I've
> seen something to the effect of before.

SQL 2003 comes in multiple parts:

• 9075-1: SQL/Framework
• 9075-2: SQL/Foundation
• 9075-3: SQL/CLI
• 9075-4: SQL/PSM
• 9075-9: SQL/MED
• 9075-10: SQL/OLB
• 9075-11: SQL/Schemata
• 9075-13: SQL/JRT
• 9075-14: SQL/XML

The PDF file of part 2 (SQL/Foundation) has 1267 pages.

Part 1: 82 pages
Part 2: 1267
Part 3: 405
Part 4: 184
Part 9: 501
Part 10: 402
Part 11: 296

Part 13: 204
Part 14: 267

> Also read somewhere that nowhere does it mention 'relations'. Is
> anybody able to confirm this?

Yes. Part 2 does not mention 'relational' or 'relation'; it does mention relationship but means how two tables are related or how SQL features are related. The most common match for 'relation' is 'correlation'. Part 1 is similar - I didn't check the rest but would not expect them to be any different.

> (If so, I'm not sure why SQL products claim to be relational, unless
> they use tables for the user interface and implement relations under the
> covers which would make sense to me although I doubt if any of them go
> to that trouble. The reason I say this is that I'm pretty darn sure
> I've never seen a relation, except in my mind's eye.)
>
> pc
Received on Tue Apr 04 2006 - 05:40:58 CEST