Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!troi!tardis!avram
From: avram@dbaccess.com (Avram Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Relational Vs Non
Message-ID: <332@tardis.dbaccess.com>
Date: 21 Feb 91 19:31:00 GMT
References: <9308@cognos.UUCP>
Organization: DB Access Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 40

in article <9308@cognos.UUCP>, nigelc@cognos.UUCP (Nigel Campbell) says:
> 
> I noticed was that the arguments in favour of relational were based on 
> the capability of the engine the person was used to , the more basic it
> was the easier for the other camp to shoot it down with 'Rms could do that..'
> etc . 
> 
> Would others like to comment on some of the 'features' of their dbms that
> has helped them in a similar fashion . 


 The issue you present is not relational vs non relational but rather what are
the required features of a DBMS.  My list includes:

 Dictionary or Data Def. Lanuage. A data repository should be addressable
  by data base and element name.

 Programming or Data Manipulation Lanuage. DBMS should allow you to access
  your data ... some methods include 
   Procedural Lanuages
   GUI's
   Colection & Reporting features
   Application generators.
   High Level Lanuage Interfaces

 Logging, Journaling & recovery. Most DBMS esp on small computers totally
  fail this requirement

 Data Structures and views. Relational vs Hieracharical vs Network vs
  inverted vs ?? considerations.

 Access Optimization: does the programmer or the DBMS chose indexes and
  or join stratigies for a request as an example.

Access Control
-- 
Avram Friedman                    INTERNET: avram@dbaccess.com
c/o DB/Access Inc.                UUCP: {uunet,mips}!troi!avram
2900 Gordon Avenue, Suite 101     FAX: (408) 735-0328
Santa Clara, CA 95051             TEL: (408) 735-7545


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com