Microsoft Access - two questions

[Ben Scott]

On 7/29/07, > Paul Lussier <p.lussier at comcast.net> wrote:
> Interestingly, the MySQL website makes no mention of whether it's
> relational or not.

  In case it wasn't clear: The term "relational database" has been
degraded to the point where it now just means "better", i.e., "Our
product is better than the competition because our product is a
relational database".  "Relational" always means exactly what the
speaker wants it to, and not what you think it means.  It's like
"natural" applied to food products.

  I think the Wikipedia article "Relational model"[1] gives one a
pretty good feel for what "relational database" originally meant.
Lots of math and logic and stuff.  In particular, note that a "proper"
SQL implementation cannot be a "proper" relational database, as SQL
allows things the relational model does not.  Of course, today, "SQL"
and "relational database" are synonymous in many people's minds.  That
shows just how derailed the terminology has become.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_model

  So, asking if something is a "relational database" is almost
certainly not a useful question, and more than likely, is just an
attempt by somebody to skew perception by (re)defining terms.

-- Ben