Re: 3NF question

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:58:38 -0800
Message-ID: <41e30773_2@127.0.0.1>

tore.trollsaas_ XATX-xatx-_at_skedsmo.online.no wrote:

> On 9 Jan 2005 16:07:46 -0800, "jonnie" <jsavell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 

>>DA Morgan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>OK. If that's all I have to do to get off the fire, then fine. I would
>>like it to be called person_id instead of ID.
>>
>>-jonnie

> 
> 
> ... and possibly you would even consider MemberNbr, EmployeeNbr , SSN,
> etc. Maybe even ZipCode  ;-)
> 
> Consider what would happen if they were all named ID ? "ID What?"
> 
> mvh Tore

One of my favorites is the "natural join" between two tables with a column named "Comments."

Nothing quite so good at enhancing performance as a meaningless join on a column containing kilobytes or megabytes of formatted text.

-- 
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 Mon Jan 10 2005 - 16:58:38 CST