Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:58:49 GMT
Message-ID: <dSHEh.1656$PV3.22901_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Walt wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> news:NI4Eh.1119605$1T2.260816_at_pd7urf2no...
>
>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Yes, a reference (I like the term) is what the (i) defines ...
>>
>>...
>>
>>Not to tout SQL of which I know very little but I believe it or at least
>>some implementations, uses the keyword "REFERENCES". For all I know,
>>the same implementations also support "FOREIGN KEY" phrase. If that's
>>so, I'd be curious to know from SQL experts whether the typical
>>implementations require the latter to reference a "primary key" and if
>>the former doesn't. If that's so I'd be really curious to hear of
>>examples where REFERENCES is superior in practice to "FOREIGN KEY".
> > I would be very hesitant to draw deep philosophical inferences from the > choices that the designers of SQL made regarding keywords. The same goes > for any other computer language. > > And I say htis as someone who likes SQL a bit more than the purists of this > newsgroup.
What do you like about it? Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 21:58:49 CET