Re: pro- foreign key propaganda?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:25:05 -0400
"paul c" <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah> wrote in message
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>>> bs, so is the rest. a modern digital camera would do better than a
>>> digital computer ever could.
>> Are you really that thick, or are you just having fun at my expense? I'm
>> not really in the mood to be the butt of your little joke.
> When talking about just what a database value is, you need to use words
> such as abstraction, distortion, figment and embellishment, sometimes even
> distraction, otherwise you fall prey to wishful thinking and mysticism.
> This is quite different from talking about how to use one. I've heard
> similar said about mathematics. I wouldn't come here if it wasn't fun.
All that is needed is to be able to separate and keep separate what is in the database and what is represented in the database. From its inception it was always intended that what is in the database map to what is represented in the database. From page 25 of Codd's book:
the concepts of keys in the relational model were always intended to identify objects in the micro-world that the database is supposed to represent. In other words, keys in the relational model act as surrogates for the objects being modeled.
Certainly if you blur the distinction between what is in the database and what is represented in the database, you're asking for trouble. But simply acknowledging the existence of the micro-world and the objects contained within does not put you at risk of falling prey to wishful thinking and mysticism. Received on Sun May 25 2008 - 17:25:05 CEST