Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

Bob Badour wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>His problem goes a lot deeper than his assumption about examples. The
> >>>>real root of the problem is his belief that he has a valid point to make.
> >>>
> >>>It is a valid point.
> >>
> >>Only if you make the fundamental mistake of pretending a non-key is a key.
> >

<Snip>
>
> None of these issues have anything to do with anything Selzer wrote,
> which leaves me scratching my head wondering how you consider any of
> them relevant to the prior discussion.

Perhaps not. I personally do think it does have relevance, but I'll defer to your wisdom on this one.

• Dan