Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> wrote:
> I've heard lots and read a few smaller articles but don't think
> I've got around to any of his books.
Having just poked around on the Internet, I think perhaps this was his
only full-fledge book, per se. The rest of his work appears to have
been papers published in academia or with the ACM.
>> to be considered a relational database, it must be
>> impossible to write two queries which can be shown to be logically
>> equivalent but which optimize to different access plans
>
> Sounds as though he's using a different definition than what I would
> use, but I'm sure I'll find out.
I think that as the inventor of the relational model for database
management, he felt that things were being done using the name of the
technology which didn't match his vision of it. This book, and some
of his papers, seem to have been geared toward preserving the
integrity of his vision of RDBMS.
-Kevin
