Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news: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?

It's "good enough" for a lot of purposes (to quote a post fo your from a few weeks back). Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 22:41:20 CET