|
From: Jim Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >It was not relational at the time and still isn't. The relational > >stuff is built on top of a basic ISAM-type database allowing > >split-key alternate indices (A.K.A. logical files). > > Is it not relational because it doesn't provide RDB functionality, or is it > not relational because it was an ISAM database adapted for RDB > functionality? > There is no need for a drawn-out discussion on this. When RDB first became a buzzword everyone and his brother were claiming that his database was an RDB. C.F. Codd, the inventor of the RDB, set forth a set of criteria a database must meet to be relational. The AS/400 native database did not (and does not) meet these criteria. On top of a native database one can build an RDB. AFAIK, DB/2 for MVS is built on top of VSAM.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.