Is it possible to build a purely relational database on top of SQL?
From: Ralph Becket <rafe_at_cs.mu.oz.au>
Date: 5 Jul 2004 01:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <3638acfd.0407050029.5424e360_at_posting.google.com>
Please forgive me if this question is naive/asked every other week (to date I've been unable to find an answer on Google.)
Date: 5 Jul 2004 01:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <3638acfd.0407050029.5424e360_at_posting.google.com>
Please forgive me if this question is naive/asked every other week (to date I've been unable to find an answer on Google.)
My question: is there any reason why a purely relational database interface, in the "Third Manifesto" sense of, say, Tutorial D, could not be built on top of any existing commercial SQL DBMS? That is, could one build a true RDBMS without having to rewrite everything from scratch? (Note, I do not require that such
an interface be expected to work for an arbitrary DB containing unpleasantness such as NULLs and duplicate rows etc.)If this is possible, has it been done? Are there performance issues with such an approach?
If it is not possible, what is it about SQL that lacks sufficient expressive power?
Many thanks,
-- Ralph
Received on Mon Jul 05 2004 - 10:29:12 CEST