Re: Newbie question about db normalization theory: redundant keys OK?

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:4763db6c$0$5291$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> David Portas wrote:
>> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message
>> news:prJ8j.53582$eY.44749_at_newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>>>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that superceded it.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
>>>>is no problem that requires a different key.
>>>>
>>>
>>>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?
>
> 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.
>
> David, I don't know why you bother with self-aggrandizing ignorants like
> Selzer.
>

I believe that with this post you have proven yourself to be ignorant. You appear to not have a clue about how relational data is used in applications, nor does it appear that you can distinguish between a distributed database and an application. Perhaps you should consider keeping your mouth closed, unless, of course, you enjoy the taste of your feet.

> [snip]
Received on Sat Dec 15 2007 - 20:37:41 CET