On CNET: Create your holiday wish list
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 15 of 133:
Next »
« Previous
Non definition
Do you know anyhing about Relational?

At all?

Any of you?

You do know that a relational database has nothing to do with physical layout, right?

In fact, that is one of the rules. The physical implementation is separate from the logical view of the data.


It would be possible to create a fully relational database engine using only flat files for the storage medium.

It has nothing to do with "relationships between tables" either.

It has to do with the tables, or 'relations' or themselves.
Posted by: msalomon   Posted on: 02/24/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

MS, IBM and Oracle have no relational products  jorwell | 02/24/05
Relational Databases  d0ti5 | 02/24/05
IBM theory vs practice  __howard__ | 02/24/05
RDB History: IBM project started in 1973  mikew_z | 02/25/05
Oh yes they do!  neverhome | 02/24/05
Bull  jnonneman | 02/24/05
Since Codds 12 is the definition of Relational...  msalomon | 02/24/05
mathematical reason  __howard__ | 02/24/05
Metric system  d0ti5 | 02/25/05
No not relational  jorwell | 02/25/05
By what definition?  Shift4SMS | 02/24/05
A common misapprehension  jorwell | 02/25/05
if ignorance is bliss, you're a happy fool  cicuta | 02/24/05
RDBMS Defined...  neverhome | 02/24/05
Non definition  msalomon | 02/24/05
Okay, let me shed MORE light here  neverhome | 02/24/05
the blind leading the blind  cicuta | 02/24/05
Interchangeability  jorwell | 02/25/05
I fully agree  Shift4SMS | 02/25/05
You are a foolish man to jump to such conclusions  jorwell | 02/25/05
Is it a DBMS or an RDBMS?  careed | 02/25/05
What are you talking about?  kevin@... | 02/24/05
More info on "relational" db  __howard__ | 02/24/05
Many thanks your Lordship  jorwell | 02/25/05
They are basically relational.  flipper35 | 02/24/05
"Basically relational"? you cannot have it both ways  msalomon | 02/24/05
Awwww.....  neverhome | 02/24/05
SQL Standard  CAPCAN | 02/24/05
(nt) Clueless  d_jedi | 02/24/05
MS IBM have no relational DB's?  Terfenol_D | 02/24/05
Can set a primary key  jorwell | 02/25/05
Not relational?  CodeBubba | 02/24/05
Not really ignorant  __howard__ | 02/24/05
Unfortunately you are the one that is ignorant  jorwell | 02/25/05
good to see ms going back to the drawing board  liskanich | 02/24/05
Back to the drawing board...  d0ti5 | 02/24/05
MySQL  Chad_z | 02/24/05
MySQL is one of the worst  jorwell | 02/24/05
I beg to differ  ngon | 02/24/05
noticeable degradation sounds like improper configuration of sql  liskanich | 02/24/05
I had One  nucrash | 02/24/05
That's the problem, you need more hardware to get the same performance  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
Never? Really?  cicuta | 02/24/05
The depressing thing about Open Source DBMS  jorwell | 02/24/05
What the hell is wrong with SQL  nucrash | 02/24/05
A hell of a lot  jorwell | 02/24/05
SQL just a high level programming language  voska | 02/24/05
So your problem is understrnading of the theory ?  michael-t | 02/24/05
For some applications, think BerkeleyDB. It is the absolute fastest.  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
Performance is only a tiny part of the problem  jorwell | 02/24/05
Well, I could not agree more, but we will be living with SQL for a while.  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
WHAT?  doe_z | 02/24/05
DEFINE RELATIONAL  cicuta | 02/24/05
You can read this up for yourself  jorwell | 02/24/05
Stop whining and do something about it  criderja | 02/24/05
Don't waste your time responding to this guy  kribor_z | 02/24/05
Expert??  jorwell | 02/24/05
Well this is something to useful to learn  pelsql | 03/14/05
A few things  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Quite right  Chad_z | 02/24/05
Thanks Chad  xsylvainhoule@... | 02/25/05
Per processor pricing is silly  voska | 02/24/05
I agree, but, it is another way of making more $  TechType | 02/24/05
Hmmm, can you say multi-core,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/24/05
Can you say IBM???  nucrash | 02/24/05
Let me help you with the topic...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/24/05
Watch them charge you per core  voska | 02/24/05
Nope, MS said they won't.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/24/05
I will belive that...  Patrick Jones | 02/24/05
Believe it, this is the way it is actually done  pelsql | 03/14/05
That's not binding though  voska | 02/25/05
It was the future 3 yers ago.  B.O.F.H. | 02/24/05
Per user licensing  JanglinJack | 02/24/05
That'd be per server  voska | 02/25/05
I don't agree ...  mwagner@... | 02/24/05
I can see per sever pricing  voska | 02/25/05
Wrong understanding of MS SQL Per processor licence  pelsql | 03/14/05
Closer analogy  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Per Processor Licensing  gbed | 02/24/05
Per Processor Licensing  arnold_walker@... | 02/24/05
Extremely Vendor Specific  awhite@... | 04/17/05
MS says multi core is multi processor  appletonjim | 02/24/05
Huh?  rapson | 02/24/05
I know, Oracle doesn't however  voska | 02/25/05
Also think PostgreSQL. It is improving fast.  DonnieBoy | 02/24/05
Yes, absolutely  Chad_z | 02/24/05
Competition is always good ...  mwagner@... | 02/24/05
Yep...  brble | 02/24/05
$3000+ *per processor*?!?!? Time to think Postgres or Mysql!  kensys | 02/24/05
I'll say!  CobraA1 | 02/25/05
Pay less work more a less expensive proposition ?  pelsql | 03/14/05
Wizard of failing Magics  awhite@... | 04/17/05
BALONEY! Microsoft didnt start it.  daver_z | 02/24/05
SQL Server v. Oracle 10g  tenryuu | 02/24/05
I Disagree  robert.hart@... | 02/24/05
Can you explain  michael-t | 02/24/05
SQL Server vs Oracle  JRidge | 02/26/05
Not always the same experience....  pelsql | 03/14/05
oracle is great  NemesisNL | 02/24/05
Oracle is starting to suck  NotMSUser | 02/24/05
Whats the alternative?  awhite@... | 04/17/05
The Scorpion and The Turtle  shadomn | 02/24/05
Been there dun that. - Access vs Paradox  jhawklyn@... | 02/24/05
Split MS Apps from MS OS  gordon@... | 02/24/05
Who won the 2000 election  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
"We believe the packaging and licensing is a feature of the product."  linuxoverwindows | 02/24/05
Pope Is Gonna Croak: Any Bets On When?  itanalyst | 02/24/05
Stay INSIDE - for your own safety  j.m.galvin | 02/24/05
Considering From A Religous Standpoint  itanalyst | 02/24/05
Struggling to work this into the topic...  brble | 02/24/05
Easy  awhite@... | 04/17/05
You're a sad individual  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
There are many sad individuals Joey  Jeff Spicoli | 02/24/05
At the risk of feeding the troll...  bill@... | 02/25/05
5 figure donation. Sure. Right.  Beechcraft | 02/24/05
It amazes me  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
Microsoft  tonyarm@... | 02/24/05
SQL son, SQL.  seosamh_z | 02/24/05
Im suprised...  jdahs@... | 02/24/05
The Evil Gnomes of Redmond  btkatt | 02/25/05
There are Alternatives  viswakarma | 02/24/05
No one has enough revenue  bjbrock | 02/24/05
Cheaper than Free?  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Welcome home!  seosamh_z | 02/25/05
Well sure. When they realized they couldn't  bjbrock | 02/24/05
Microsoft may not defeat Oracle in Database Price War  taye_omo@... | 02/24/05
MS DATABASE  zdnethead | 02/25/05
Would Someone Please Explain to Me...  bill@... | 02/25/05
Because their small business  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Post-Relational  zielpunkt | 02/25/05
Pros and Cons  awhite@... | 04/17/05
Whatever . . .  Sheeva | 03/01/05
2 words - Corporate Merger  awhite@... | 04/17/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here