Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

paul c wrote:

> A system-supplied CANDIDATE key seems no more a bad conclusion than a
> system-supplied date but I suspect there are readers here who would
> prefer to complicate the environment by dragging in various code
> standards or other arbitrary inventions. TTM suggests this very thing
> in its 'RM strong suggestions' and can be found online although the book
> goes into more detail and IIRC avoids using the to me risky word
> 'super'. It also doesn't pre-suppose a '32-bit' value - eg., that
> could have wrap-around problems. Maybe it's another argument for always
> using views at the application level.

I'm not really suggesting a system-supplied key, because the sytem would never supply it to anyone. (Except in case the user does not spec a PK, in which case it is provided. but in a different capacity --- this is perhaps cause for confusion.)

On this issue, shouldn't the TTM be silent? I was under the impression it made no attempt to discuss implentation. Received on Wed Jul 19 2006 - 18:53:41 CEST