Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    506

    Unanswered: Access 2000 vs sql server

    hi,
    somebody asked me this question but I haven't succeeded to give a good answer...
    The question was...
    Access 2000 is a DBMS and Sql server is an RDBMS,so what makes sql server a RDBMS in context of Codd's rule?What are the properties that Access doesn't have to be a RDBMS?
    May be this is not so important issue,if anybody wants to answer plz help,gurus are requested not to waste their valuable time....If any of the gurus come I would be delighted....
    Last edited by rudra; 04-02-06 at 10:08.
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
    - Sir Winston Churchill
    Joydeep

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    12,592
    Provided Answers: 1
    According to some (Fabian Pascal), neither are RDBMS according to the strict interpretation of Codd's definition.

    For all practical purposes, both are RDBMS. The differences are:
    1) SQL Server is a SERVER, which is scalable to Enterprise Applications, while Access process data locally and therefor has limited scalability.
    2) SQL Server is a SERVER ONLY, concentrating on the storage and processing of data, while Access strives to be a complete development platform bundling interface and reporting tools as well.

    Both are equally "RDBMS".
    If it's not practically useful, then it's practically useless.

    blindman
    www.chess.com: "sqlblindman"
    www.LobsterShot.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    One thing that I think is important to note is that based on the original paper Codd posted in the CACM, no commercial database meets all of the requirements to be considered an RDBMS. There are a number of non-commercial packages that do meet the requirements, but none of them are commercially successful, and I don't know of any that are even commercially offered.

    At least in my opinion, the primary point of getting to an RDBMS is removing the "geek" side of the definition of a schema. In other words, if you don't need to know what language/tools will be used to implement the schema in order to understand and discuss that schema, then in my frame of reference you've met that spirit of the RDBMS if not the letter of the formal definition. By that standard, both Jet (the database engine that underlies MS-Access) and MS-SQL are able to meet that definition.

    Nearly every database engine has its own "geek toys". Some lean toward "punch card" geeks like Z Series DB2 and Oracle. Others lean toward OOP geeks like GemStone and GBase. The problem is that any problem defintion that falls prey to relying on any geek toy is moving away from the RDBMS idea, back toward the day when you needed both file defintions and application code in order to understand what a schema meant, and in my view that is a bad thing.

    -PatP

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Phelan
    no commercial database meets all of the requirements to be considered an RDBMS.
    -PatP
    Then Oracle also doesn't meet all the codd's 12 rules...but microsoft and oracle both claims their product to be a Real RDBMS.
    The 12th rule i.e. no subversion rule is also confusing.Anyway
    Thanks Batman,thanks Pat ,thank you both for those valuable comments.
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
    - Sir Winston Churchill
    Joydeep

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •