Re: Distributed foreign keys (was Re: Category Types)
From: Lauri Pietarinen <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:35:06 +0300
Message-ID: <3EF9EB5A.3060403_at_atbusiness.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:35:06 +0300
Message-ID: <3EF9EB5A.3060403_at_atbusiness.com>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>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.
>
>All relvars have an implicit "key" which is formed by all the relation
>attributes. Therefore a key with all the relation attributes is
>redundant.
>
>The other keys are only a shorthand for an integrity constraint.
>
So we really end up with
- a bunch of datatypes (or domains)
- a set of relation variables (or schemas)
- a set of integrity constraints
Did I leave anything out?
It's pretty simple when you get down to the bottom of it!
regards,
Lauri Pietarinen
Received on Wed Jun 25 2003 - 20:35:06 CEST