Warp wrote:
>   Ok, maybe it wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that "SQL database" is
> just short for "a database system which is mainly/exclusively interfaced
> with using SQL".

Or perhaps "A database compatible with access via SQL"? SQL can't really 
search anything that doesn't fairly closely follow the relational model, is 
what I'm trying to say.

>   Btw, do database systems (such as Oracle) support any other interfaces
> than SQL? 

Sure. There's QBE - Query By Example. There's all kinds of form inputs 
(which eventually probably turn into SQL). There's what's called Relational 
Algebra, where you write out selects, projects, and joins as such, altho I 
don't know any databases that specifically expose that interface.

And of course there's a bunch of interfaces for things like making backups 
or replicating data that access the database in a bulk-like way without 
doing what you might call "queries".

> Are there any database systems which would use something else than
> SQL as the user interface? 

Yes. CouchDB, Google's App Engine cloud database, Google's BigTable, 
Amazon's SimpleDB, a bunch of stuff inside Amazon (like Dynamo), etc. All 
pretty much targetted at spaces where speed or scale (or both) is more 
important than consistency. (I.e., none of them are what you'd call ACID.)

> (Can MS Access be considered a database system?)

I would certainly say so. Not a very sophisticated one, mind. And there were 
tons of such database systems (foxbase, dbase, etc) back before desktop 
machines got powerful enough to effectively support fully relational databases.


http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/10/amazons_dynamo.html
http://labs.google.com/papers/bigtable.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_by_Example
http://couchdb.apache.org/
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/overview.html

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message