Re: Are redundant fields ever appropriate?

From: JRStern <JRStern_at_gte.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:51:09 GMT
Message-ID: <3c1fe462.30511122_at_news.gte.net>

On 21 Nov 2001 10:25:51 -0800, 71062.1056_at_compuserve.com (--CELKO--) wrote:
>Real SQL has nothing like the IDENTITY column. It is not only
>proprietary, it is non-relational, not verifiable aganst the reality
>being modeled, and usually the result of a lazy database designer who
>did not want to deal with thinking about how to model his situation.
>I have a really long rant about the evils of IDENTITY I might post
>later.

Send a copy to Bill Gates, his minions have been preaching (and sometimes requiring) the universal use of identity columns as primary keys. Almost makes one nostalgic for Janet Reno, but I don't think she knows much about database theory, either.

Joshua Stern
JRStern_at_gte.net Received on Wed Dec 19 2001 - 01:51:09 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: www.wedding-service.co.uk/: "DB required to list multiple D.I.V.O.R.C.E.S. & Re-marriages"
Previous message: =/\\= Majki =/\\=: "Help! - Hashing for Distributed Systems"
Maybe in reply to: Nis Jorgensen: "Re: Are redundant fields ever appropriate?"
Next in thread: Kendall: "Re: Extendible Hashing question on Splitting to Handle Overflow"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message