Re: does a table always need a PK?

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote:
> So by extension, it's clear how one would handle the 'a*a-b*b+25' case:
>
> (a1*a1-b1*b1+25)+(a2*a2-b2*b2+25)+...+(an*an-bn*bn+25)
>
> I think that's a logical and consistent way to handle aggregates. Any
> intra-tuple calculations are higher precedence than any inter-tuple
> calculation. (Even if the happen to be the same operator, as in the
> 'a+b' case.)

Just so.

It isn't necessarily TOTALLY irrational to consider applying reduction "inside the calculation," but it seems quite reasonable for the aggregates to be considered separately.

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc" "_at_" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Last night  I played a  blank tape at  full blast. The mime  next door
went nuts.