Access DBMS or RDBMS ?

[Panks]

Is MS Access a DBMS or RDBMS. If it is DBMS and not RDBMS , how do you
differentiate between dbms and rdbms?

Panks

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

If you follow the exact definition of cods rules that layout and state what
a relational data base is, then none of the major commercial database
systems
(oracle, ms-sql server, Sybase) are relational by this strict definition.

However, if mean compared to the very old systems like dbase etc that did
NOT have built in provisions for dealing with, and joining data from
multiple tables into one, then yes, ms-access is relational.

So, by the strict definitions of relational databases, Oracle, ms-sql server
etc are not consider relational.

However, buy the industries general use of the term real database, then
sure, I would most certainly consider ms-access relational.

However, to be really clear on this subject, I would not really call
ms-access a database anyway. You don't ask if c++, or VB is relational. The
same goes for ms-access.

Ms-access is simply a development tool to use WITH a database engine. Thus,
while oracle, or sql-server cannot build forms, ms-access lets you build
forms and reports (you can't do that with sql-server). So, ms-access lets
you choose that database system you are going to work with. So, you can use
ms-access with the JET engine (this is the default file share engine), or
you can use the sql server database engine with ms-access. So, in effect,
ms-access is just a interface development tool like VB, or c++. None of
these tools are database systems, but are tools to CONNECT to a database
system.

how do you differentiate between dbms and rdbms?

So many people have such varying options on this one, it is really hard to
give an answer. I think as along as the system supports sql, and allows you
to effect enforce and support relations between tables, then we kind of have
a rdbms.

 

[david epsom dot com dot au]

Is MS Access a DBMS or RDBMS. If it is DBMS and not RDBMS , how do you

MS called Access a RDMS. Some other people did not. Which side you fall on
is as much a question of semantics as of fact. Access is a RDBMS when
compared to other /kinds/ of DBMS: A RDBMS is the kind of DBMS that Access
is. Although Access actually fails most of the tests listed below, the term
'Relational' is legitimately descriptive. On the other hand, MS stopped
trying to make Jet into a decent RDBMS years ago, and put the effort into
SQL Server.

(david)


------------


0. For a system to qualify as a RELATIONAL, DATABASE, MANAGEMENT system,
that system must use its RELATIONAL facilities (exclusively) to MANAGE the
DATABASE.

1. All information in a relational data base is represented explicitly at
the logical level and in exactly one way - by values in tables.

2. Every individual scalar value in the database must be logically
addressable by specifying the name of the containing table, the name of the
containing column and the primary key value of the containing row.

3. Null values (distinct from the empty character string or a string of
blank characters and distinct from zero or any other number) are supported
in fully relational DBMS for representing missing information and
inapplicable information in a systematic way, independent of data type.

4. The system is required to support an online, inline, relational catalog
that is accessible to authorized users by means of their regular query
language.

5. The system must support a least one relational language that (a) has a
linear syntax, (b) can be used both interactively and within application
programs, and (c) supports data definition operations (including view
definitions), data manipulation operations (update as well as retrieval),
security and integrity constraints, and transaction management operations
(begin, commit, and rollback).

6. All views that are theoretically updatable must be updatable by the
system.

7. The system must support set-at-a-time INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE
operators.

8. The physical representation of the data must be invisible to the user,
so that the user can manage the data according to need rather than according
to the way it is stored.

9. If a user's view of the data has been defined, then changing the logical
structure of the data (tables, columns, rows, and so on) must not change the
user's view

10. Integrity constraints must be specified separately from application
programs and stored in the catalog. It must be possible to change such
constraints as and when appropriate without unnecessarily affecting existing
applications.

11. The distribution of portions of the database to various locations should
be invisible to users of the database.

12. If the system provides a low-level (record-at-a-time) interface, then
that interface cannot be used to subvert the system (e.g.) bypassing a
relational
security or integrity constraint.

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

oracle, ms-sql server, Sybase) are relational by this strict definition.

I meant to say

oracle, ms-sql server, Sybase) are NOT relational by this strict definition.