Re: Distributed foreign keys (was Re: Category Types)
From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: 25 Jun 2003 08:41:21 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0306250741.1a8bb467_at_posting.google.com>
Date: 25 Jun 2003 08:41:21 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0306250741.1a8bb467_at_posting.google.com>
"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
Me too.
Do you have an alternative term?
BTW here is my crazy idea of the day :-)
There is not doubt that FKs are only a shorthand for an integrity
constraint.
IMO candidate keys or keys are also a shorthand and they should not be
obligatory.
The other keys are only a shorthand for an integrity constraint.
E.g.
Alfredo Received on Wed Jun 25 2003 - 17:41:21 CEST