Re: Distributed foreign keys (was Re: Category Types)
From: Marshall Spight <mspight_at_dnai.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:44:27 GMT
Message-ID: <f08Ka.13498$nG.16866_at_rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
> P.S. does anyone share my dislike of the term 'Foreign Key'? to me it's a
> misnomer, for one they are not Keys (the FK columns do not have to be unique)
> and if "Foreign" is meant to imply that *all* the values in the PK are also in
> the FK then that is wrong also. Plus I always spell foreign wrong (i.e.
> foriegn)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:44:27 GMT
Message-ID: <f08Ka.13498$nG.16866_at_rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
"Paul Vernon" <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:bd9khq$rgg$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com...
>
> P.S. does anyone share my dislike of the term 'Foreign Key'? to me it's a
> misnomer, for one they are not Keys (the FK columns do not have to be unique)
> and if "Foreign" is meant to imply that *all* the values in the PK are also in
> the FK then that is wrong also. Plus I always spell foreign wrong (i.e.
> foriegn)
Sure, the term sucks. Other terms that suck: primary key, candidate key, prime attribute, boyce-codd normal form. In fact, pretty much all database theory terms suck except "table" and "tuple." Even "relation" is pretty bad. "Set" would be okay, but no one uses it.
Marshall Received on Wed Jun 25 2003 - 04:44:27 CEST