This is a rather awkward question but I need to ask it. I'm working with a "Progress" database. It has about 650 tables in it. Instead of using a Primary Key -> Foreign Key design, the tables basically have the same fields (3-4 fields) replicated in each table. There is nothing which specifically links the tables together via the same field names.

Is this considered a relational database? I'm told that it definately is but I always thought for a database to be relational, you had to actually have some kind of link between the tables.

Is there a website which would clarify this further?

No primary keys, no relational database

pootle flump ur codings are working excelent.

The wierd thing is that you can define primary keys and indexes. But you can't actually link them to another table (i.e. no Foreign key so to speak).

The word "Relational" in "Relational Database" has nothing to do with relationships between tables. It actually refers to related fields within tables.

So the answer would be "Yes" - it is considered a relational database because it has the same field names in each of the tables even though there are no direct links between the fields (and the ability to assign a Primary Key to a field doesn't determine that it's relational)?

So. Is there any mechanism to enforce relational integrity within Progress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database

That is why I said Primary and not Foreign
Guess what a relation needs to have before it can be considered a relation?

pootle flump ur codings are working excelent.

Now that is just plain silly.

pootle flump ur codings are working excelent.

...and a tautological argument is an argument that uses tautologies.

according to another web site article i read recently, if there is even one NULL anywhere in the database, it isn't a relational database

of course, this was posted by a fabian sycophant, so take it for what it's worth...

I think this would just be called a realy crappy database. Or maybe you could just call it a datapile or a dataheap.

Hmm....

The value of b in a NATURAL JOIN b = a is well defined, according to Date and Darwen.

It's as a relation with no attributes and a cardinality of zero. (Or maybe it's a cardinality of one, I always get them backwards. Anyhow, it exists and is a valid relational value.) How could a relation with no attributes have a primary key?

It seems like dbdebunk has stopped putting out articles. Which is well enough, seeing as how they had pretty much stopping talking about RM and were just bashing America / whining about the downfall of Western civ.

There is a relational answer to nulls, sixth normal form. I think I posted about it a while back.

But it requires DBMS support to be of practical use, so until then I use nulls.

(edit: fixed markup)

In regards to the question of enforcing referential integrity - no - Progress does not support referential integrity. You can define Primary Keys (not foreign keys) and indexes. That is all. And yes, I do agree with blindman's comment about the database.

The programming of a Progress database is done via 4GL (not that it matters). But the reason I ask the question about whether it is or is not considered a relational database is because this has become a rather touchy topic with the rest of the development team and as their new dba, I worried about orphaned records (which do exist) and claimed that it was not a relational database. Of course this comment was met with extreme critisizm.

Every table has 3-4 fields in it that are the same. I imported the tables into MSAccess and connected in the links. The attachment shows SOME of the structure where I linked the tables together in MSAccess to try and get a sense of what I was dealing with but there is NO physical capabilities of linking the tables together in Progress itself.