Re: Nested Relations / RVAs / NFNF

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:17:34 -0500
Message-ID: <clphc0$2j$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:Z0Rfd.258396$wV.95677_at_attbi_s54...
> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
news:7dfolc.m6e.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
<snip>
> > Those who dislike surrogate keys are probably turning green at the
thought.
>
> Heck with 'em. Surrogate keys are a fact of life. (Which doesn't mean
> natural keys aren't "better"-- but sometimes you don't have a natural
> key, and you gotta have *some* key.)

Another byproduct of embedded lists is that a larger percentage of primary collections (e.g. relations) have natural keys. Many of the relations that would otherwise need surrogates can be nested and don't need foreign keys from the parent to the child. --dawn Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 03:17:34 CEST

Original text of this message