Re: does a table always need a PK?
From: Lee Fesperman <firstsql_at_ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:29:20 GMT
Message-ID: <3F4A7F1D.291C_at_ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:29:20 GMT
Message-ID: <3F4A7F1D.291C_at_ix.netcom.com>
Bob Badour wrote:
>
> "Heikki Tuuri" <Heikki.Tuuri_at_innodb.com> wrote in message
> news:GEg2b.11$G37.0_at_read3.inet.fi..
> > 2 years ago we discussed the 'correct' definition of 'relational' in
> > comp.databases.theory with several people. I think the concept is vague.
> > For example, Codd's 12 principles are not formulated as mathematical axioms.
>
> Read the 1970 ACM paper instead of 12 rules of thumb.
Forget it, Bob. He has a commercial interest in claiming that the Relational Model is vague. He has stubbornly refused to educate himself, clinging to 'thumbnail' descriptions of the relational model. See Database Debunkings (www.dbdebunk.com) for a glaring example.
-- Lee Fesperman, FirstSQL, Inc. (http://www.firstsql.com) ============================================================== * The Ultimate DBMS is here! * FirstSQL/J Object/Relational DBMS (http://www.firstsql.com)Received on Mon Aug 25 2003 - 23:29:20 CEST