Re: database market share 2003

"Mark A" <nobody_at_switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<Sg_zc.18$W%4.33645_at_news.uswest.net>...

> With Oracle (a little more than some other RDBMS's) programmers and users
> who access the data want to know (or need to know depending on your point of
> view) a little bit about the way the data is physically organized. This
> includes things like rowids, certain kinds of indexes, etc.

You must be day-dreaming if you think this will stick. What an utter load of crap.

> In a pure
> relational model, the physical structure of the data is isolated from the
> logical structure.

And Oracle does not conform to this but DB2 does? Want me to start quoting the differences in DB2 implementation of even the most basic things,like its different data types across platforms?

> This movement away from a pure relational model is done for performance
> reasons or to add features that some programmers may want. Nevertheless
> these features (no matter how much people want them) often are in violation
> of both Codd's rules and ANSI SQL standards.

What a load fo bullshit. Codd never required restrictions on ANY features of a database, provided the basics were there. That is the reason DB2 needs one SQL manual for EVERY single platform it runs on.

> Even if you don't take my word on this subject, it was clear that Codd
> originally rated Oracle as less relational than DB2 (according to his 12
> rules),

Yes he did. Comparing Oracle V4 to DB2 on mainframes. Since then, a LOT has changed.

> and Oracle has gone way beyond the SQL standards (and often the
> relational model) since that time.

Proof of this crap? Received on Wed Jun 16 2004 - 22:53:16 CDT