On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:17:08AM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >Access is not a real SQL database, but it has some SQL interface
> >glued onto it.
>
> What do you mean by "real SQL database"? Would you call MySQL a real SQL
> database? I think Access is as real as MySQL in terms of being a SQL
> database; it even has things like subselect long before MySQL does.
Access doesn't explicitly have as one of its goals SQL conformance.
It has some features of real databases, yes, but its support of SQL
really only goes as far as what's convenient. (Maybe things have
changed since the last time I looked at Access, which was Access 97.
But my impression then, and from what I've read about it since, is
that its native support for SQL is just good enough to make you
realise you need SQL server.) MySQL says it is committed to
implementing the ANSI standards.
Anyway, what I really think about all of this is that you could learn
good database design with more or less any database, if you worked at
it. Some systems are just better at enforcing the rules for you.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner