Timeline for What does the word Relational in "Relational Database" imply?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2021 at 15:44 | comment | added | Steve | @IMSoP, I agree, a relation is synonymous with "table". What is related (in this usage) are the individual columns of the table, which is why joining two tables then yields a new "relation". This jargon is however awkward, inconsistent with normal conceptualisations of tables, and it commandeers the English word "relation" (and by implication associated forms like "related") which are often desired to be used for more important purposes, so the word "relation" should never be used in practice to refer to a table. | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 11:33 | comment | added | IMSoP | The last sentence of this answer goes back to the misunderstanding that "relational" refers to some relationship between tables, but a "relation" is a single table. | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 9:23 | vote | accept | Shamim Hafiz - MSFT | ||
| Apr 20, 2011 at 6:25 | history | answered | MaQleod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |