| Date: | Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:51:53 -0400 |
|---|
| Reply-To: | Dianne Rhodes <diannerhodes@COMCAST.NET> |
|---|
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
|---|
| From: | Dianne Rhodes <diannerhodes@COMCAST.NET> |
|---|
| Subject: | Re: Non RDBMS was Top IT places to work |
|---|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:46:04 -0400, Sigurd Hermansen <HERMANS1@WESTAT.COM>
wrote:
>Non-relational DBMS? While databases may or may not have a relational
design, a DBMS merely supports a relational database or not. SAS provides
sufficient support for relational databases, though not to the extent that
E. F. Codd would have liked. Few do.
Absolutely. Yourdan-DeMarco would pull their collective hair out over the
ORACLE db I am supporting here with SAS. It has keys embedded in other
keys. A comment field of $1000 that's part of a big table, instead of
being lopped off on its own. Etc., etc. However, the integrity constraints
are so tight it makes it very difficult to test anything. That seems to
be the one thing the DBA actually has control over.
Dianne @ BLS PPI
|
