Re: Surrogate Key Semantics

From: <jonshin2003_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 12 Nov 2005 23:10:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1131865855.158377.237530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Thanks for the response...I guess.

>>>Let's get back to the basics of an RDBMS. Your questions are all based
>>>on the wrong mental model.

What should the "mental model" be?

>>Read some of Dr. Codd's stuff on this.

All the data, nothing but the data...blah, blah. I want practical answers.

>>BY DEFINITION, you cannot name a surrogate key because it is hidden from you.

Yeah, you can. A.ID is a made-up key for table A. I call it a surrogate key.

>>>Rows are not records; fields are not columns; tables are not files.

Yeah, they are.

>>>RDBMS uses the terms "referenced" and "referencing" tables. And it
>>>does not say HOW that referencing is done. So anything like what you
>>>call a surrogate will depend on the implementation, not on RDBMS.

What? Databases define relationships with primary and foreign keys?

What are you talking about? Can you just answer my question? Received on Sun Nov 13 2005 - 01:10:55 CST