On 8 Jun 2006 05:21:07 -0700, dananrg@yahoo.com <dananrg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book "Practical
> Issues in Database Management."
> Some questions:
>
> 1) Is PostgreSQL more faithful to relational theory? If so, do you find
> yourself using the additional functionality afforded by this? e.g. does
> it really matter to what you do in your daily work.
Modern PostgreSQL is a SQL dbms. What makes pg great is that it is so
expandable...it really leverages the power of SQL.
> 2) If PostgreSQL is *not* significantly more faithful to relational
> theory than commercial RDBMSs, is it at least on the road to becoming
> more faithful?
I would say less faithful. For example 'quel' was dropped in favor of
sql quite some time ago.
> 3) If PostgreSQL is not on the road to becoming more faithful to
> relational theory and purity, why not? Is it due to the fact that
> various SQL standards are themselves not fully faithful to relational
> theory, and most RDBMSs have as a primary design goal to be faithful to
> standards (which Pascal implies *are* relationally deficient)?
> 4) Which database, commercial or non-commercial, is most faithful to
> relational theory itself, or is headed in that direction the quickest?
right now the commercial market is firmly rooted in sql. open-source
is pretty much the same, although there is less of an emphasis on
tools and more of an emphasis on versatlity through programming
interfaces. Most people don't understand the difference between SQL
and relational and the advantages and disadvantages of each. This is
a failure of academia and is one of the central themes of Fabian's
books.
merlin
