@CitizenBane said:
Yeah, I started this post with a different idea. I should have changed the subject when I had a chance.
And, yes, I realize the "relational" part of it has more to do than just foreign keys. (The first WTF I had with this database is noticing that it had neither PKs nor FKs anywhere)
It's the content of the post, not the subject title, that I was pointing out. See:
"Relational database", as it turns out here, is just a buzz word. Primary and Foreign Keys (or lack thereof) asside...
That makes it look like you think that the ability to declare relationships between tables is why we call it the relational model. But that's not why it's called the relational model, nor why we refer to implementations as "relational databases".
Not a real big deal, though. Most data professionals have the same misconception.
-rel