Re: A philosophical newbie issue: catch redundant errors via relationships or programmically?

"raylopez99" <raylopez99_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f5ac644b-f282-4a64-b23b-f6a8c81f2a7b_at_e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Dec 30, 2:19 pm, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:

> > Table Certificate of Deposit provides a series of fixed income
> > products (CDs, Bonds, notes, etc, that are portable, in that you can
> > deposit them anywhere)--hereinafter "CD". Primary key right now is
> > "CD SYmbol" (alphanumeric designator of the product:
> > XYZABC_Bond_matures_2008)
>
> > Table Bank has a primary key comprising: An account number that is
> > unique to every person--hereinafter "Bank"
>
> Why not call it 'Persons' if - as I read from this -
> it is supposed to hold data about persons?

You can call it Persons if you want; what's in a name?

There are situations where one name is just as good as another. Communication between people in a newsgroup is a situation where choosing meaningful names facilitates communication between a message poster and the responders.

Believe it or not, I am now confused about whether the table named "Bank" has one row in it for each bank, or one row in it for each person. That confusion cuts down on my ability to give you helpful responses to the real questions you raise. Received on Mon Dec 31 2007 - 18:01:13 CET