Re: Relational Databases Lack Relationships
From: Nicola <nvitacolonna_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:28:40 +0100
Message-ID: <n0njkh$1t1k$1_at_adenine.netfront.net>
>> On 2015-10-22 16:20:18 +0000, Eric said:
>>
>> Alas, often. A part of the XML community had a similar mindset, for
>> instance. And I work with people who dismiss the relational model as a way
>> to have data uncomfortably spread across different tables.
>
> And unable to even consider that they have missed a point somewhere?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:28:40 +0100
Message-ID: <n0njkh$1t1k$1_at_adenine.netfront.net>
On 2015-10-24 16:29:23 +0000, Eric said:
> On 2015-10-23, Nicola <nvitacolonna_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-10-22 16:20:18 +0000, Eric said:
>>> >>> Aside from needing to find out what on earth they mean by >>> "semi-structured" and "ad-hoc, exceptional relationships", has anyone >>> ever heard, from any other source, that codifying paper forms and tabular >>> structures is what relational databases were designed to do?
>>
>> Alas, often. A part of the XML community had a similar mindset, for
>> instance. And I work with people who dismiss the relational model as a way
>> to have data uncomfortably spread across different tables.
>
> And unable to even consider that they have missed a point somewhere?
People are not rational :)
Another area where the "relational data model turns out to be too poor" (to
quote a popular textbook) is spatial databases. The argument by which spatial
data do not fit into tabular form, hence the relational model is unsuitable,
is commonplace.
Nicola
- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news_at_netfront.net ---