Re: I have read tons of theory...but still...one question
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:52:19 -0500
Message-ID: <cks57p$kd9$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ft0n0p93s2q4o6vu05l19thp2qve9pcnm_at_4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:52:18 -0400, "Kostas" <noemail_at_noemail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Many thanks to anyone who can clue me in,
>
> This is not an answer, but a question.
>
> Somewhere in this thread someone said to use the phone number as the
> primary key. Or maybe it was a differnet thread, and that's why I
> can't find it :) Anyway ...
It was in this thread and I think I said it, but I meant it to be the primary key of this child-table, with the person's identifier also obviously part of the key if this sub-table is not embedded in the parent table. I tried to answer from a relational perspective, but I've been warped by having something easier to work with at hand.
> What happens in such a scheme if two people have the same phone
> number?
>
> What happens if one person has two or more phone numbers?
>
> I'm fairly certain I've missed the point once again.
My point in that regard was that no other generated key for the phone number sub-table (that is, relation with constraints that make it a child table) was needed. Cheers! --dawn
> Lemming
> --
> Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Received on Sat Oct 16 2004 - 23:52:19 CEST