Re: Nested Relations / RVAs / NFNF

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:37:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1giplc.ush.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>


Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> "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

How do you apply referential integrity to the individual members of a list?

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me
Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 03:37:02 CEST

Original text of this message