Re: Proper relational database?

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Anyone familiar with the issue would have to say that the tech world would
> be a significantly better place if IBM had developed a real relational
> database with an elegant query language rather than the awful camel of a
> thing that is SQL.
>
> If I had a few $million to spend in a philanthropical manner, I would hire
> some of the best PG devs to develop a proper relational database server.
> Probably a query language that expressed the relational algebra in a
> scheme-like syntax, and the storage model would be properly relational (eg
> no duplicate rows).
>
> It's an enormous tragedy that all the development effort that has gone
> into NoSQL database has pretty much all gotten it wrong: by all means throw
> out SQL, but not the relational model with it. They're all just rehashing
> the debate over hierarchical storage from the 70s. Comp Sci courses should
> feature a history class.
>
> It's a bit odd to me that someone isn't working on such a thing.
>
> Just curious what folks here have to say…
>

​Transpiling

​Having learned SQL you come to appreciate its warts and inefficiencies -
but I have no doubt that any other attempt at the same goal would have its
own, different, set of complaints.

​My tables don't have duplicates and while extra care need be taken
automatic duplicate removal also has the property of potentially hiding
bugs - whether more or less than non-removal I cannot say.

​David J.