Re: Primary Keys optional?

Great guys,

I would agree and after reading Jared's explanation, there is hardly anything left to say.

Although I would add one more scenario where I could see no use of PK or FK, unless again I am wrong on this. I haven't implemented this myself or haven't seen one installation of it but the FACT table in STAR schema design might be a possibly *very* large table without PK or FK. It should still be indexed though.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Dhimant Patel.

On 8/21/06, Jesse, Rich <Rich.Jesse_at_qg.com> wrote:
>
> Most humble apologies -- probably some VMS/RMS terms of a past life
> blending with the relational ones. I should have said "compound key",
> "composite key", or "concatenated key".
>
> I sit corrected. :)
>
> Rich
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2006 12:32 AM
> *To:* Jesse, Rich
> *Cc:* jkstill_at_gmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Primary Keys optional?
>
> segmented key? Not a term I've seen before.
>
>
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> http://www.orawin.info
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l