No it isn’t.
Very loosely interpreted, yes, that’s true.
Heirarchichal databases have rows and columns. They are not relational.
Simple. Poop floats.
Yes. It is.
If you have tables, then you have a relational database. This isn’t how they are commonly referred to but technically this is correct.
Usually when people talk about databases they mean ones on computers like SQL Server or Oracle. However, a shopping list stuck to the front a refrigerator certainly qualifies also.
[/quote]
Technically, they are. They have rows and columns and this makes them relational. However, most people refer to advanced relational databases which are in (or mostly in) first normal form as simply “relational databases” and others as “flat”. The old style mainframe databases set up in tree structure are called “heirachical”. These names are because of the differences in the structure of them. But, technically, most databases use tables and this makes them meet the definition of a relational database.
Sorry to continue the geeky carping, but this is one the few things I feel like I know something about. Your definition of a relational database pretty much describes any list out there, which is NOT what a relational database is. In a relational database, data is related to each other.
I’m not sure there Delaware Appraisal Land Information System got it’s definitions, but these sources pretty much agree with everyone who’s disagreed with you so far.
Sorry for the geeky digression. And, yeah, your boss sounds like someone waiting for retirement.
A relational database is a collection of relations with distinct relation names.
Database Management Systems, Second Edition by Ramakrishnan and Gherke.
Yeah… not so much.
A list is still a list. Just cuz you can create a single column table and call that a database, doesn’t make it relational.
I didn’t say it does. A shopping list on the refrigerator door is a database, but it isn’t relational unless it’s in table form with rows and columns. Most shopping lists aren’t that fancy.
…but earlier…
SQL and Oracle are classic relational DBMS’s. See where I’m going with this?.. 
It’s hard to call something that doesn’t contain relational metadata a relational database. So on that score, spreadsheets are generally right out. Personally, I’d have trouble calling anything not in first normal form a relational database, but that might be stricter than most other folks.
Don’t get too hung up on the rows, columns and tables–those are just how the data is generally visually presented, and it’s a very convenient metaphor for working with it. But it’s perfectly possible to have a set of XML files that comprise a relational database and don’t look like that.
Um, I think your geek is showing, guys.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Shit! Hold on a second…
tucks it back in
Whew! I can’t believe I was walking around all day with that thing hanging out.
If data is in a base with relational metadata but it’s not connected to any other data, does it really relate?
As long as you have the metadata, you have a relational database.
A spreadsheet is the vertical mill of the software world. With a vertical mill, you can do anything any other tool can do, or just build the tool to do that dedicated function.
Same thing with a spreadsheet. If you have a spreadsheet, you can build anything. A relational database, a word processor, a video game, whatever.
It’s just easier and more efficient to use a dedicated tool for those things.
No, it’s emotionally closed-off and distant.
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck knew SQL?
SELECT [woodchucking capacity] FROM [animals] WHERE [animal name] = “woodchuck”
Select SUM[woodchucking capacity] FROM [animals] WHERE [animal name] = “woodchuck”
- woodchuck is not a unique record in the animals table.
I was thinking the same thing until I got to “CIO” in the first post.