Re: Surrogate Keys

I guess I came across as sounding madder at Neil that I really was. In any event, Neil and I have patched things up, put that behind us by exchanges of emails.
Neil deserves most of the credit for being a class act.

I'm going to take another look at Codd's rules, and see if I can come up with any answers.
Meanwhile, there are others in the group more qualified than I am to answer your question.

I'll start here:

The metadata isn't stored in tables that can be subjected to queries using the same language as the language used to query data. At least, if it is, I missed that in my skimming of ACCESS.

Jon Myers wrote in message <39366d8b$0$20953_at_wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
>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.
>>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 00:00:00 CEST