Re: Enforcing functional dependecy constraints

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:17:01 GMT
Message-ID: <NBBnf.103533$Gd6.19900@pd7tw3no>

x wrote:
> "David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:PKznf.1173$Y2.1015_at_trndny04...
>
>
>

>>>Elementary as in "elementary in theory" because this is the standard
>>
>>problem
>>
>>>for BCNF.

>
>

>>If it's elementary, and there's a standard answer, and the standard answer
>>is not the best, in your view,  then what is wrong, in your view?

>
>
> It is elementary in theory. Practice is something else :-).
>

Supposedly it was Yogi Berra who said "In theory, there should be no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is."

It does seem clumsy to have to use two tables, even a subterfuge. I'm tempted to try to implement C->B directly as a constraint

p Received on Tue Dec 13 2005 - 09:17:01 CST