Re: Nested Relations / RVAs / NFNF

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <7dfolc.m6e.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>


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 "fam.net" to
email me
Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 17:38:15 CEST

Original text of this message