Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:01:45 GMT
Message-ID: <d66Eh.1119691$1T2.345726_at_pd7urf2no>
>
>
> Specifically I defined a particular kind of FD which is equivalent
> to a candidate key. An FD in turn being a particular kind
> of constraint.
>
> Hmmm. Can we express keyness otherwise? I can't think how.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:01:45 GMT
Message-ID: <d66Eh.1119691$1T2.345726_at_pd7urf2no>
Marshall wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:28 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>
>>It looked to me as if the OP did define it. I've seen the same >>definition expressed in equivalent algebra here many moons ago.
>
>
> Specifically I defined a particular kind of FD which is equivalent
> to a candidate key. An FD in turn being a particular kind
> of constraint.
>
> Hmmm. Can we express keyness otherwise? I can't think how.
SOL (I'm suspect), but that's another topic, as far as most people are concerned. I don't say it's better, just that I haven't seen anybody yet say why it's worse.
p Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 03:01:45 CET