Customer Reviews

The Relational Database Dictionary: A Comprehensive Glossary of Relational Terms and Concepts, with Illustrative Examples

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I don't care how long you've been in IT... If you get into a conversation with a hard-core data modeler, they will have you lost in language in a matter of 10 minutes or less. If you want to understand the precise terminology and meanings behind the words, this book might be your best short-term bet... The Relational Database Dictionary by C. J. Date.

This is similar to an O'Reilly's "Pocket Guide" title, in that it's a small format page design that totals just 113 pages. Included in those 113 pages are over 600 terms and phrases that relate to the world of relational databases. Probably the key thing to take into account here is the author... C. J. Date. Date is an authority in all things relational, so you know you're going to get expert definitions and opinions. The flip side is that Date is very much into the theoretical world of relational technology. Because of that, you get definitions that are very much founded in mathematical terminology and notation. Also, Date is very opinionated, and he has to qualms about giving you those opinions as to whether something is important or not...

If you're going to be spending time in the relational database world, you'll need to know this information. It's all packaged up in a concise format that will make it an oft-visited volume. Just don't read through the book thinking this is a "definitions for dummies" approach to the material. You *do* have to think here...

C.J. Date's THE RELATIONAL DATABASE, may appear small in stature but its information is invaluable, offering a basic guide defining the meaning of database-related terms in a quick reference of some 600 terms. Offered up in a pocket size, it provides easy at-a-glance definitions perfect for quick consultation.

At around 100 pages, 'The Relational Database Dictionary' is one of the shortest books that O'Reilly publishes, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing! So many books are publishes with bloat that it's nice seeing these occasional pocket guides (there certainly aren't a lot of them) that keep the bulk down and the content tight. Folks this book does everything it says it does. It's a dictionary of relational database terms. It's not meant to be a teaching guide or anything extensive. The books assumes that you know (or will know at some point) a bit about what RDBMS are and why you would want to use them. The guide is tailored towards the professional that wants a quick reference on their desk for daily terminology that they might need to look up, or a quick refresher on subjects that they already know about but want to refresh their memory. If you use databases on a daily basis and are an administrator or developer, I think this is a fine reference to have on your desk. If you are looking for a LEARNING book this isn't what you are looking for. It's best described as a companion book and I think it accomplishes that niche goal just fine.

**** RECOMMENDED

This is a great book to obtain quick and easy-to-digest information on database facts and terminology. It has constantly been at arms length away.

Users that can get the most mileage out of the book are DBAs and developers that work heavily with databases. This book would also been create during the database theory classes I had at University.

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions regarding the review.

The subtitle to this book is "Terms, Concepts and Examples." It definitely is full of RDBMS terms. I do sympathize with the reviewer who found the language a bit terse and perhaps is a reason to consider the author aloof. I decided to look up "inner join." It was given as a question I received in an interview once. The definition contrasts the "inner" version against the "outer" version, which it then immediately states won't be discussed further (and isn't). I find it a bit challenging to use a term that you won't define as part of a definition for a term that you (supposedly) define...only to be redirected to "Join." However, these are what I consider to be "style" issues more than "substance" issues in the considerable bulk of the content.

The examples are a bit esoteric. Under "INSERT" we have a definition that starts out with the word "Loosely." When was the last time that you saw a "regular" dictionary start a definition with the word loosely to describe the generality of the definition?

I don't agree that financial success or volumes of units sold indicate the quality of a book. This one could definitely be better in some measurable ways, but how?

Remember when you were like in 3rd grade and you weren't allowed to use the "word" as part of the definition? How about "inheritance?" ...with the definition being "Type inheritance." At least even the most abbreviated dictionaries use complete sentences. "relvar" as a word in a definition? When you have to use the dictionary to look up a term in the definition of a term, you know that you're chasing your tail.

Reading through this, I feel like I'm being "lectured" on the terminology of the relational database industry by someone who is wound up in it and incapable of putting themselves into the end-user's world. I don't feel embraced by the curtness and apparent aloofness of the definitions and chasing around the maze only to find such meaningful nuggets that include the word as part of the definition...like somebody skipped the 3rd grade altogether and the rest of us were simply too unfortunate to have been brought ahead so eloquently. Take the example of "set level." "The operators of the relational model are all set level, in the sense that they take entire relations or relvars (or both) as operands and either produce entire relations as results or update entire relvars."

...okay, can you use that in a sentence? Is "set level" a noun, verb, adjective, adverb or something else? It seems to describe either a model or sets of results (or perhaps both?).

So most of us already know some definitions for "set" and for "level" and none of them seem very similar to what we've found above. This kind of "doublespeak" is why I think that a lot of the content comes across as aloof or haughty. Part of this guilt undoubtedly belongs to the form-factor of the book. It is intentionally small and brief. In an effort to map well to the form-factor, I think that a bit of the subtle graces due to the reader went missing.

What this book needs is a way to include the "more casual" RDBMS admin/programmer/user rather than provide for the elitist gurus who supposedly already know all of this stuff as well as their names.

"entity" "A thing." I'm not sure how many of us couldn't live without that bit of insight...)

I rate it a bit more toward the middle-ground than perhaps is obvious from my written review because it is always a challenge to please everyone with a book and I sincerely believe that the intent of O'Reilly and the author was well-placed, but perhaps the form-factor gives artificially terse results. True to my "title" for the review, there are a LOT of good definitions and information packed inside the book, but the "not so good" ones do tend to be a bit more obvious than I'd prefer.

It is rare that O'Reilly publishes bad books. Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is it. This book, claiming to be a Relational Database Dictionary, is very far from dictionary. In fact, it is a collection of "smart" phrases that are to show author's intelligence. It is not clear whether author has ever had a strong structural knowledge on the subject. Try finding what is index, for instance - a major concept in relational databases - and you will be disappointed. This book is too small to even be a good door stopper. Don't recomment it.

The worst database reference book I have ever bought! Too much opinion and not enough facts. Definately not geared towards the majority of database practioneers. Don't waste you money on this "reference"