User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Relational ≠ SQL

Relational ≠ SQL

Posted Nov 3, 2010 7:10 UTC (Wed) by ldo (guest, #40946)
Parent article: A report from OpenSQLCamp

SQL does not have to be the only way to access relational databases. It has many shortcomings and peculiarities, for example it does not allow tables as first-class objects. It became entrenched because for so long all the relational databases worth using for proprietary; in the modern open-source world, there is no reason why this has to continue to be so.

Look at mathematical treatments like relational algebra and relational calculus, to see where a new, more modern, query language might come from.


(Log in to post comments)

Relational ≠ SQL

Posted Nov 3, 2010 11:10 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Postgres used to have its own language called Postquel but it was only when it switched to an SQL front-end that it took off. Unfortunately, SQL is the only relational query language the world knows. In its modern, ANSI-standardized form (as supported by Postgres) it's pretty powerful but the syntax is still yuck.

Relational ≠ SQL

Posted Nov 5, 2010 19:48 UTC (Fri) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link]

Wouldn't it be possible to provide multiple languages accessing the same DB? So you could have this Postquel (which I have to admit I've never heard of) and SQL accessing the DB simultaneously while maintaining a fully ACID compliant DB.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds