Re: Primary Key Theory Question
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:34:33 +0200
Message-ID: <c4sc5k$8gj$1_at_reader08.wxs.nl>
"Mike Sherrill" <MSherrillnonono_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:jpvv601vj87f081e5f6q03rbmq946i3fm9_at_4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:47:47 +0200, "ben brugman" <ben_at_niethier.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >By definition this can not be a candidate key and therefore
> >can't be a primairy key either.
>
> I never said it was. In fact, I said "There's no key".
>
You wrote in a previous mail :
"
In my experience, a surrogate key takes the place of a candidate key,
and an artificial key isn't a key. An artificial key might uniquely
identify a row, but it doesn't uniquely identify what the row
represents.
"
This text containt the word KEY five times.
My question did concern this text.
So my assumption was we were still talking about the
same, I had not noticed the subject was changed.
Sorry.
For the last example (the one not containing a key), then it can not be normalised an can not be stored in a normalised way in a relational database.
ben brugman
> --
> Mike Sherrill
> Information Management Systems
Received on Mon Apr 05 2004 - 21:34:33 CEST