Re: Surrogate Keys

From: Randy Yates <yates_at_207.87.184.178>
Date: 2000/06/02
Message-ID: <393748C9.75D2ACD4_at_207.87.184.178>#1/1


Jon Myers wrote:
>
> Hi David.
>
> You might be mad at Neil, but I'm sure others (including myself) would be
> interested in where Access falls shorter from Codd's ideal than other
> databases advertised as being relational. I promise not to snap if I
> disagree (I doubt I'm qualified to disagree!). I just don't think I've ever
> seen such a list and I'd be very interested.
>
> Thank you,
> Jon Myers
>
> David Cressey wrote in message ...
> >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.
> >

I second the request. To me, Access is quite close enough to "relational" to be called relational. Educate me. Define relational.

-- 
% Randy Yates                   % "Watching all the days go by...    
%% DIGITAL SOUND LABS           %  Who are you and who am I?"
%%% Digital Audio Sig. Proc.    % 'Mission (A World Record)', 
%%%% <yates_at_ieee.org>           % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://207.87.184.178/index.htm
Received on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message