Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:09:49 GMT
Message-ID: <1efyg.248492$Mn5.248386@pd7tw3no>

Brian Selzer wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> news:bDeyg.252058$IK3.149094_at_pd7tw1no...

>> Brian Selzer wrote:
>>> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
>>> news:e43yg.27359$pu3.361813_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>> JOG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J M Davitt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [big snip]
>>> ...
>>> How much work have you done in the field?  This comment makes you sound 
>>> like a neophyte.
>>> ...
>> Is this changing the subject?
>>

> I don't think so. He obviously doesn't have a clue about the problems with
> key volatility. In fact, it appears from his other comments that he doesn't
> understand the fundamental concepts of the Relational Model.
>

By the Information Principle (if keys have values), 'key volatility' must be value volatility, which is a non-sequitur, as the joke goes about 'military intelligence' (at the moment, I forget the common term for this contradiction, sorry).

As far as "He" goes, the subject is certainly being changed, not to my agreement!

p Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 22:09:49 CDT