Re: Second Normal Form help.

Phil Singer <psinger1_at_chartermi.net> wrote in message news:3AC6A2F3.F293DBD_at_chartermi.net...
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > Sure, Its valid in first normal form. To be in second normal form, all
> > non-key attributes need to be functionally dependant on the entire key,
 not
> > key combinations.
> >
> > James_one <James_one_at_deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:WUMw6.271824$65.1466583_at_news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
> > > Is that not a valid primary key, the combination of BuildingID and
> > > GarageNumber?
> >
>
> It is so nice to have an functional ISP and be able to
> post again, instead of having to lurk at work.
>
> If someone would be so kind as to explain where the above
> nonsense comes from I would be most grateful. I know that..

Hi Phil,

I think we are starting to beat a dead horse here.. If you look a little further down the thread, you'll see where I've realized and admitted my mistake. You'll also see where the starter of this topic has found closure.

Tom Received on Tue Apr 03 2001 - 14:46:31 CEST