Re: Nested Relations / RVAs / NFNF

From: Kenneth Downs <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <>

Marshall Spight wrote:
> So, on a related note, it's a little weird that we use integers as
> keys. Integers support e.g. addition, so we are allowed to add
> two keys together. This is nonsensical. Perhaps, if we want
> to have surrogate keys, something different from integers
> might be in order. That brings me to my 2a) idea, which is a
> datatype that only supports these operations, and none other
> 1) make me a new one
> 2) copy
> 3) test two such values for equality
> [this idea is not original with me.]

Right now I'm digging around in PostgreSQL, so I relate everything to that. They allow type extensions, and have some built-in types, including various surrogate ID types, that behave as you describe.

Those who dislike surrogate keys are probably turning green at the thought.

Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "" to
email me
Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 17:38:15 CEST

Original text of this message