2 ms·
> The data in one table would not be related to the data in the other tables. It would not be referentially intact. The use of "related" in the docs and here i
by johannes1234321 5y ago
> The data in one table would not be related to the data in the other tables. It would not be referentially intact.
The use of "related" in the docs and here in the title of the posting seems to make the typical wrong assumption, that "relational database" refers to the "relation" between "related" tables. However the theory refers to the relation between the tuples aka rows. Thus that the relation is the single table.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_(database) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_(database)
- yyybcbcbc 5y agoHow would you phrase it correctly? After all, tables in a relational database are also related to each other.
- johannes1234321 5y agoYou may "refer" to a different relation and have referential integrity between relations. Maybe "joinable" is also acceptable. You might also explicitly mention "foreign key" constraints. Purely mathematically I believe. In relational algebra there is no term, as from a mathematical point you can join any relations. Whether that makes sense is a different question.