Re: Units of Measurement in the Database Model

Daniel Dudley wrote:
>
> "David J. Aronson" <dja2001_at_att.net> wrote
...
> > If, as I thought, you were thinking of the "foreign key into UoM
> > registry" case, then I agree with all that you said.
...
> Right on, although I do dislike the use of the term
> "foreign key" when discussing lookup tables.

Why? What is your preferred term for such a case? When do you prefer to use the term "foreign key"? (BTW, I'm coming at this thread from the c.s-e angle, and I ass-u-me you're from c.d or c.d.t, so this would be a good chance for me to get another perspective on it.)

> > If you really meant the "UoMs are *only* recorded in a separate
> > table, where the measurement record is referenced by table and
> > field" case, then I think we've got some debating to do. Not
> > only don't I see how this way is likely to lead to a smaller
> > database (whether the UoMs vary by record or not), but it seems
> > overly complicated and inefficient, to the point where I really
> > don't see any advantage to it.
>
> Rest assured, this never would have entered my mind. ;-)

I was sorta wondering how it got into John's! Maybe I completely misunderstood what he meant....

-- 
David J. Aronson, Software Engineer FOR HIRE IN PHILADELPHIA AREA
Resume, and other details, online at: http://dja2001.home.att.net