On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:06:38 +0200, R Smith <ryansmit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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?".
You may say that, many others would disagree. 8>< -------- > 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". There is no such thing as relational data, data is what it is and the Relational Model (E.F.Codd ...) is a way of organising data (any data, despite many arguments to the contrary). Using "relational" as a sort of generic term, or as a metaphor, leads to confusion because it hides the fact that there is a formal system which is behind the creation of SQL databases, except that the various implementers got it wrong, including missing out some key points of the Model. 8>< -------- > PS: While I feel some ambivalence towards the subject, I was nodding in > agreement with most of your post, till that line appeared. :) Thankyou! > PPS: Apologies for inventing some words there.... I have no problem with that. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
