Re: dumb terminology question: candidate key

dawn wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> >
> > Now that we know better, I propose that we drop the term "candidate"
> > from "candidate key" and leave just "key." I say this with all the
> > naive optimism of youth. (A good trick at my age.)
>
> Works for me, youngster.

(I'm old enough that being called "youngster" is pleasantly quaint, the way one feels about a well-meant compliment that couldn't possibly be true. :-)

> When we ditch the candidate key term, can we
> add "primary key" back in?

I don't know that we ever formally took it out. That said, I buy into Date's claim that the concept is one of convenience, not formalism.

> I'd like to keep the notion of a primary
> key that does not map to the mathematical model, but to people. It
> could also help in tools since there is often a key that could be
> deemed the one most likely to be used as a foreign key to this relation
> (could be the default unless someone chooses another). I suspect there
> are quite a few dbms implementations that still have this concept by
> whatever name (identity, id, pk etc). So, let's ditch the candidate
> key term and refrain from booing when we hear about primary and
> alternate keys. OK?

Again, as a convenience, particularly a notational convenience, it makes sense. There are some concerns, but I think they can be managed.

Marshall Received on Thu Jul 21 2005 - 19:50:50 CEST