Re: Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:15:16 GMT
Message-ID: <oyAoj.13430$9g.5292_at_trndny07>

"James A. Fortune" <> wrote in message news:%23vttc7EZIHA.220_at_TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > database, is qualitatively different from the design target of the
> > who write Access databases and applications.
> >
> > If they ever get to the point where the complexity of what they are
> > matches the complexity of what practitioners using SQL Server, Oracle,
> > DB2 are doing, or the complexity that database theorists are
> > they will be forced to either learn or disprove what some of us know, or
> > think we know.
> I don't have broad enough experience to dispute your argument. I
> understand that people who specialize in SQL and deal with more complex
> situations than most develop practices that make use of their more
> intimate knowledge of SQL. However, I can't just take their word about
> their decisions. I have to understand how those choices apply to what
> I'm doing.

I agree, absolutely. What I was arguing against was the dismissal without evaluation of what theorists have to offer.

> Without making light of their potential contribution, I
> avoid the specious argument that because a large company or IT
> department does things a certain way or spends more money on the problem
> makes their solution inherently correct. Plus, the complexity of the
> problems they face often argue against their use in Access. Few Access
> developers have the luxury to hire or supervise a full-time SQL
> developer. If using multiple field natural keys causes a problem(s), a
> full-time SQL developer has time to work with the SQL until the problem
> is solved. SQL is only part of our job.

SQL isn't the silver bullet, either.

> Maybe many Access programmers prefer a single key to limit the number of
> fields that get corrupted :-).

In that case, I believe they are wrong. Received on Fri Feb 01 2008 - 09:15:16 CET

Original text of this message