Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ocsmd!zeus!spencer
From: spencer@zeus.ocs.com (Spencer Hines)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Relational Databases
Message-ID: <1239@ocsmd.com>
Date: 13 Jun 91 14:49:59 GMT
References: <6822@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <1991Jun07.063749.7904@chinet.chi.il.us> <1991Jun08.124337.29813@uvmark.uucp>
Sender: news@ocsmd.com
Organization: Online Computer Systems, Germantown MD
Lines: 28

In article <1991Jun08.124337.29813@uvmark.uucp> jim@uvmark.uucp (Jim Todhunter) writes:
>In article <1991Jun07.063749.7904@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>>mebrenna@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Leonardo) writes:
>>>Does anyone have a good definition of a Relational Database, and a
>>>possible example?
>>
>>[... Stuff deleted ...]
>>
>>Basically, a relational database is one that has been "normalized", that
>>is, taken through (at minimum) first, second, and third normal forms.
>>These "normal forms" are the processes of eliminating repeating data
>>in favor of index keys.
>>[...More Stuff deleted...]

Just a note that in my experience no one in the real (read customer)
world has the faintest idea about this underlying meaning, and really
won't believe you if you tell them.

Most application databases don't really support this.  In some cases,
a truly relational database would in fact be death to performance.

Also, in my experience, every vendor claims that everything about their
implementation is relational, often not true at all from a technical
point of view.

My point is that don't assume that someone is referring to the technical
sense of relational.  They may mean that they want file interrelatedness,
SQL, and so on.