Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:43:51 GMT
Message-ID: <b9ryg.28138$pu3.372481@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>> paul c wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Selzer is apparently unable to extract the meaning from relatively 
>> simple english. Why would anyone care what anything sounds like to 
>> such an idiot?

>
>
> Shouldn't have to, I admit. I was merely trying to keep the discussion
> honest. I've met so many people who throw out such red herrings when
> what they really want to do is extend a theory because they like a
> technique that deals with a problem the theory doesn't talk about at all
> (ie., concurrency, which I see as an application problem, in the same
> sense that the changing of an account balance is an application problem,
> not an RT problem). I resent the push to hack together/entangle
> different theories because it makes it so much harder to see whether
> any one of them is being applied correctly. I admit it's 'jobs for the
> boys' but those jobs are a phony kind of economy and I don't see why it
> should be that most dbms's are so fat.

Not all dbms's are all that fat. Lee Fesperman's stuff over at http://www.firstsql.com/ is particularly lean. Selzer seems to want to make applications and databases fatter rather than the dbms, so I am not sure I follow you at all. Received on Fri Jul 28 2006 - 11:43:51 CDT