OT MySQL and PostgreSQL

The recent heated discussion as to the relative merits of MySQL and
PostgresSQL reminded me of a question that I want to ask of RDBMS
experts, particularly experts who are willing to take a clear
position. Namely, what do you think of the work of C. J. Date? He
rejects SQL, as far as I can tell. Is there any support for this
position in the real world? Or in the academic world? What of
his objection to null 'values'? How does this play out when doing
mission critical DB? Does it matter? Or are there standards
techniques for avoiding any need for nulls?

I look forward to reading an interesting discussion.

--
Paul E Condon

--

0

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OT MySQL and PostgreSQL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/07 22:19, Paul E Condon wrote:
> The recent heated discussion as to the relative merits of MySQL and
> PostgresSQL reminded me of a question that I want to ask of RDBMS
> experts, particularly experts who are willing to take a clear
> position. Namely, what do you think of the work of C. J. Date? He
> rejects SQL, as far as I can tell. Is there any support for this
> position in the real world? Or in the academic world? What of
> his objection to null 'values'? How does this play out when doing
> mission critical DB? Does it matter? Or are there standards
> techniques for avoiding any need for nulls?
>
> I look forward to reading an interesting discussion.

"SQL" isn't a complete/correct "expression" of relational algebra.
So, it can't express the full power of Codd/Date's theories.

As to support for this position in the real world, there's not much,
if any; SQL is Good Enough For Most Uses. As for nulls, I don't see
a problem with them. In fact, I think you need them, in order to
describe "unknown" data. Non-DBMS systems make you use a "special
value", but if any bit of data actually has that "special value",
you're hosed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFwtliS9HxQb37XmcRApU4AKDbLEZLPw7Q3RJGqn3tykMRNv5n4gCgpvBR
XBFBpSlYyngL9YT1Q6hp1RY=
=lewk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--

OT MySQL and PostgreSQL

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 09:19:48PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> The recent heated discussion as to the relative merits of MySQL and
> PostgresSQL reminded me of a question that I want to ask of RDBMS
> experts, particularly experts who are willing to take a clear
> position. Namely, what do you think of the work of C. J. Date? He
> rejects SQL, as far as I can tell. Is there any support for this

There doesn't seem to be a standard which everyone follows.

> position in the real world? Or in the academic world? What of
> his objection to null 'values'? How does this play out when doing
> mission critical DB? Does it matter? Or are there standards
> techniques for avoiding any need for nulls?

You can always use a default value constraint. I have found strange
results from my queries if using null values.

--
Chris.
======
Don't forget to check that your /etc/apt/sources.lst entries point to
etch and not testing, otherwise you may end up with a broken system once
etch goes stable.

--

Syndicate content