Re: Surrogate Keys
From: David Cressey <david_at_dcressey.com>
Date: 2000/05/31
Message-ID: <sAfZ4.21$hW2.1058_at_petpeeve.ziplink.net>#1/1
Date: 2000/05/31
Message-ID: <sAfZ4.21$hW2.1058_at_petpeeve.ziplink.net>#1/1
Um...Gee Whiz... It must have been a bad day for you!
The part of my message that you quoted is precisely the part where I DEPART from a doctrinaire stance to say that I use ACCESS for certain practical things.
All relational products fall short of the glory of Codd, but some fall
shorter than others.
Since you don't seem to be interested by such arguments, let's just skip
it.
Every now and then, when ACCESS bites you, just consider it to be another bad day.
Neil Burnett wrote in message <39358376.EDB8C524_at_efc.be>...
>Here we go again! Joe says its not SQL and you say its not relational.
Received on Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:00 CEST