WARNING: the following sentence will be claimed to be controversial:
No database based on SQL is truly relational.
LOL - who would claim that to be controversial?
It doesn't spur controversy...
It's worthy of a shrug at best, perhaps a "So what?".
It sounds like a deepity - much like any of these:
- Nothing is ever really True...
- Is reality even really real?
- No ice-cream machine ever makes TRUE ice-cream.
An SQL database is deemed "Relational" when it can communicate mildly
relational data using mildly relational (but mathematically sound)
methods. It doesn't need to be (nor claim to be) the Almighty keeper of
all relationality, nor even simply conform to various specific
interpretations of the word "Relation".
In case the point still eludes: We call an SSL hand-shake such because
it behaves by mutual agreement - much like a human hand-shake - but just
because we call it so, doesn't bestow upon it a necessity to behave in
every way like a literal hand-shake, lest some pipe-smoking mountain
wisdom gazes far in the distance while stroking grey beard slowly and
declaring: "no SSL hand-shake is truly hand-shaky".
PS: While I feel some ambivalence towards the subject, I was nodding in
agreement with most of your post, till that line appeared. :)
PPS: Apologies for inventing some words there....
PPPS: Thumbs up for the Bedrock suggestion from another post - that
system really rocks.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
