>> As I understand it, this is considered one of the "seminal texts" on 
>> relational databases. 
> 
> It was some 25 years ago too. :-)

OK, so the book I'm worshiping is a little out of date.

Heh... you see what I just did there? :-D

>> Even I cannot comprehend the relational calculus though. Relational 
>> algebra, sure. But relational calculus? Nah.
> 
> Same here. I understand that SQL itself is much closer to the relational 
> calculus than the relation algebra. I'd have to go back and try to read 
> it again, tho.

Well, I recall a piece complaining that SQL doesn't actually follow the 
relational model very closely. (E.g., you can write querires where the 
ordering of colums matters. You can't treat derived relations in the 
same way as base relations. etc.) They emplored vendors to add the 
missing features, and generally close the gap.

This, I would assume, was completely ignored. :-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message