Re: Stupid Database Tricks
From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 23 May 2007 09:45:48 -0700
Message-ID: <1179938748.936388.196000_at_q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
On 23 mai, 17:06, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Brian Selzer wrote:
> > Now, now, Marshall. System-generated surrogates can simplifiy things if
> > ...
>
> It looks as if you have slipped in the word "surrogate", which is not
> what the others seem to be talking about. I believe Codd introduced
> that word to stand for a value that a user can never see. If users
> operate only at a logical level, then a surrogate must be a physical
> feature.
Agreed. Over the years the basic argument of familiarity became the excuse for absurdity. I wander sometime who first mentionned it. I do also believe that surrogate key implementations really are aimed to be internal and foreign to user view (including designer's view).
Date: 23 May 2007 09:45:48 -0700
Message-ID: <1179938748.936388.196000_at_q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
On 23 mai, 17:06, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Brian Selzer wrote:
> > Now, now, Marshall. System-generated surrogates can simplifiy things if
> > ...
>
> It looks as if you have slipped in the word "surrogate", which is not
> what the others seem to be talking about. I believe Codd introduced
> that word to stand for a value that a user can never see. If users
> operate only at a logical level, then a surrogate must be a physical
> feature.
Agreed. Over the years the basic argument of familiarity became the excuse for absurdity. I wander sometime who first mentionned it. I do also believe that surrogate key implementations really are aimed to be internal and foreign to user view (including designer's view).
[Snipped]
> p
Received on Wed May 23 2007 - 18:45:48 CEST