On 7/29/07, > Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interestingly, the MySQL website makes no mention of whether it's > relational or not.
In case it wasn't clear: The term "relational database" has been degraded to the point where it now just means "better", i.e., "Our product is better than the competition because our product is a relational database". "Relational" always means exactly what the speaker wants it to, and not what you think it means. It's like "natural" applied to food products. I think the Wikipedia article "Relational model"[1] gives one a pretty good feel for what "relational database" originally meant. Lots of math and logic and stuff. In particular, note that a "proper" SQL implementation cannot be a "proper" relational database, as SQL allows things the relational model does not. Of course, today, "SQL" and "relational database" are synonymous in many people's minds. That shows just how derailed the terminology has become. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_model So, asking if something is a "relational database" is almost certainly not a useful question, and more than likely, is just an attempt by somebody to skew perception by (re)defining terms. -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
