Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!telotech!bsa
From: bsa@telotech.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Referential Integrity in commercial DBMS's?
Message-ID: <1989Sep12.224332.585@telotech.uucp>
Date: 12 Sep 89 22:43:32 GMT
References: <5030@merlin.usc.edu>
Sender: bsa@telotech.uucp (Brandon S. Allbery)
Reply-To: bsa@telotech.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery)
Organization: _
	      telotech, inc. - Beachwood, OH
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: ajayshah@castor.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)

In article <5030@merlin.usc.edu>, ajayshah@castor (Ajay Shah) writes:
+---------------
| Are there non-flatfile DBMS' on the PS/PS2 platform which guarantee
| referential integrity on the scale that Unify does (i believe Unify
| has given up in the PC market after version 3.2).
+---------------

Unify Corp. didn't give up on the PC market, it gave up on the old ENTER/SSQL
UI, which was (frankly) crap.  Unfortunately, the Accell UI is too big to run
under DOS.

As for your question: in older RDBMSes, the only one that provided real
relational integrity was Sybase.  I believe all of the SQL-based RDBMSes are
adding referential integrity now; and Unify has, with Unify 2000, brought its
relational integrity into line with the evolving standard.  (Unify's
relational integrity was fine, but you couldn't automatically cascade a record
(row) deletion to its children.)

++Brandon
-- 
-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc.   (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
Any comp.sources.misc postings sent to this address will be DISCARDED -- use
allbery@uunet.UU.NET instead. My boss doesn't pay me to moderate newsgroups.
** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **