| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Newbie question about db normalization theory: redundant keys OK?
David Cressey wrote:
> "Kevin Kirkpatrick" <kvnkrkptrck_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40957504-43df-453b-8e8e-396f66b2b1e7_at_r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Dec 17, 9:57 am, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote: >> >>When it comes to keys, it comes down to one question: is the >>underlying attribute meaningful within the universe of discourse? If >>it is (i.e. the clients know what it means, will use it in >>conversation, want it in reports, specify it in queries, etc.), it is >>a natural key and belongs in the database - regardless of whether it >>is a phonetic name assigned at birth, a social security number >>assigned upon citizenship, or an id generated and assigned by the >>database itself. Otherwise, it is garbage (artificial, surrogate, >>whatever you call it).
A natural key is neither more nor less than a familiar surrogate. It doesn't matter whether the surrogate originates in a person's head, in an application layer, or in the bowels of a dbms. As soon as users interact with it making it familiar, it becomes a natural key. Received on Wed Dec 19 2007 - 09:25:18 CST
![]() |
![]() |