×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 2/8/11 8:12 AM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I really do not think that the S/36, S/34 and their predecessors
qualify as relational database machines simply because they supported
a chain by a key instead of just RRN in RPG.
Do you really think the data below is relational?
A0000100012345Bubba 1313 Mockingbird Lane New York NY12345
A00001001XYZ123Steel Coil ...
<<SNIP>>
The degree to which the data can be considered relational does not
correlate directly nor proportionally to the degree to which the DBMS
provides relational capabilities.
While those systems may not have provided a RDBMS [e.g. according to
rules of Codd], at least the S/36 had the capability to define stored
data to appear relational. On the S/36 the IDDU [like DDS on the S/38]
provided the capability to define stored data in a very relational
manner; i.e. from one scalar entity at each row\column pairing, to
further normalization available by having data with a common key
across\into other files that were also appropriately described. The
Query/36 [aka QRY/36] provided at least INNER JOIN capability to gather
the normalized data into a report using the field\column definitions
from the IDDU that were previously applied to a flat file.
Regards, Chuck
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.
midrange.com
