Is Access a RDBMS???

[Arijit Chatterjee]

I heard that MS Access is not at all a RDBMS.But why?
Only the security feature in Access is low.We can't create multiple logins or...
Other than that everything is available.So why not a RDBMS.Please explain me.
Regards
Arijit Chatterjee

[Deano]

Arijit Chatterjee wrote:

I heard that MS Access is not at all a RDBMS.But why?
Only the security feature in Access is low.We can't create multiple
logins or...
What? Sure you can create multiple logins or accounts using workgroup
security.

Other than that everything is available.So why not a RDBMS.Please explain me. Regards
Arijit Chatterjee

This is probably an opinion forged from the fire of debate about what
constitutes a truly relational database. There are many, and not
definitive, views on the characteristics of such a database and I imagine
Access falls foul of some of these requirements. In reality though what
does it matter? As long as your database is well designed and works, it's
not something that should keep you up at night.

If you need more info I imagine a trawl through Google Groups would be
useful, http://www.google.co.uk/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=

[Terry Kreft]

EF Codd defined 12 rules (a version of the rules can be seen at
http://www.itworld.com/nl/db_mgr/05072001/ ) which described a RDBMS. To
date there is no database system which fully meets all 12 rules, so on that
basis Access is not an RDBMS (but then neither is any other database
system).

If you look at the rules and see how they apply to Access you will see that
by any everyday definition of an RDBMS Access fits the model.

Essentially you are misinformed.

--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access
"Arijit Chatterjee" <ar*****************@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:ea**************************@posting.google.c om...

I heard that MS Access is not at all a RDBMS.But why?
Only the security feature in Access is low.We can't create multiple logins or... Other than that everything is available.So why not a RDBMS.Please explain me. Regards
Arijit Chatterjee

[David W. Fenton]

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:oG********************@karoo.co.uk:

If you look at the rules and see how they apply to Access you will
see that by any everyday definition of an RDBMS Access fits the
model.

Essentially you are misinformed.

Even if he weren't misinformed, if it gets the job done, why would
it matter if Access were *not* technically an RDBMS?

What matters is not the definition, but suitability to a particular
task.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Terry Kreft]

Agreed.

--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:oG********************@karoo.co.uk:

If you look at the rules and see how they apply to Access you will
see that by any everyday definition of an RDBMS Access fits the
model.

Essentially you are misinformed.

Even if he weren't misinformed, if it gets the job done, why would
it matter if Access were *not* technically an RDBMS?

What matters is not the definition, but suitability to a particular
task.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc