"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Relational" gets (ab)used for various meanings. It generally seems
> to mean that tables are at least somewhat normalized, and reference
> each other by unique keys. ISAM can be used to implement that, and
> Access can do that. OTOH, by the strict original definition, I guess
> almost none of today's databases are "true" relational databases.
> Access certainly isn't. But neither is MySQL.
Interestingly, the MySQL website makes no mention of whether it's
relational or not. It's simply referred to as the "most popular
open-source database management system". Perhaps they're not truly
relational and don't claim to be an RDBMS in order to avoid the rabid
pedanticism of the FOSS community, but also don't mention they're not
in order to avoid sowing confusion among the ignorant public at-large?
It is lacking features[1][2], and I've certainly seen plenty (if not most)
uses of MySQL completely abuse it to the point where the "developer"
completely missed the "R" point RDB[3].
Though, not being a database expert, I'm not sure whether it's "truly"
relational or not.
[1] A great feature comparison of database products is the Wikipedia page at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
[2] Most of the features MySQL is missing as compared to PostgreSQL
probably aren't missed by most of those who have decided to use it
for the myriad of LAMP projects out there.
[3] It seems that everyone these days needs a database behind their
project and picks MySQL "because it's the most popular", but has
no clue about database design, and often times, almost as little
clue about good programming technique.
--
Seeya,
Paul
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
