Re: Newbie question about db normalization theory: redundant keys OK?
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:49:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4763db6c$0$5291$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David Portas wrote:
Managing data on a server... and managing data on a client... um, and
the idiot is too stupid to see what that has to do with distributed data
management?!? Yikes!
Just because the idiot chose a piss-poor way to manage data at one node
in the system doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's going on.
> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message
> news:prJ8j.53582$eY.44749_at_newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>>is no problem that requires a different key.
>>>You are saying that this is a distributed database but that it lacks a
>>>mechanism for accurately propagating changes out to all its nodes?
>>>Well in my view such a DBMS would be broken. It surely violates Codd's
>>>principle of "Distribution Independence". Let's follow your example to
>>>its conclusion though. The solution is to replace whatever copy of the
>>>Blah relation exists in the application with the new Blah relation
>>>that superceded it. Now all emails reach the correct address and there
>>>
>>
>>Forgive me for butting in, David, but where did you come up with the idea
>>that it is a distributed database? What have disconnected
>>applications--that is, applications that use something akin to
>>disconnected ADO recordsets or ADO.NET datasets--to do with distributed
>>databases?
David, I don't know why you bother with self-aggrandizing ignorants like Selzer.
[snip] Received on Sat Dec 15 2007 - 14:49:27 CET