Re: 3NF question
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:41:55 -0800
Message-ID: <41e179c7$1_3_at_127.0.0.1>
jonnie wrote:
> -CELKO- wrote:
>
>>There is no such thing as a"Magical, universal id number"; newbies
>
> use
>
>>IDENTITY or other proprietary auto-numbering devices to mimick a >>sequential tape file when they do not understand RDBMS and keys.
>
>
> I respect what you have said. On the otherhand, I would like to say
> that I believe ID can be an acceptable attribute for an object, even if
> a sequential identity scheme is deemed unsuitable.
I disagree. A person table might have a person_id that uniquely identifies that person within a specific application. But a column named ID has no place in any set.
Furthermore, I
> wouldn't mind making the Login/Password table employ an ID foreign key
> to refer to the ID property.
If the login is unique any additional identifier is at best redundant and at worst a guarantee of losing system integrity.
When asked what benefit this expensive
> indirection offered, i could only say "maybe i get to have one or more
> login/password combinations for each user (feebly suggesting additional
> design freedom (ouch!) ) or, worse, that an ID would somehow be better
> protected by preventing its everyday use. Well, at least the FDs looked
> pretty, I thought.
Maybe only works in poker if everyone else folds.
-- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond) ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---Received on Sun Jan 09 2005 - 19:41:55 CET