Re: Natural keys vs Aritficial Keys
From: lawpoop <lawpoop_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <12fb27e4-519b-4953-b632-b34b96f93e9e_at_r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <12fb27e4-519b-4953-b632-b34b96f93e9e_at_r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On May 16, 2:45 pm, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> There's no two ways about it. If the row would be duplicated if not for
> the spurious distinction of a value that was generated only to ensure
> distinction and *for no other reason*, it's logically still a duplicate
> row.
>
> By itself a duplicate is absurd but pretty harmless. The problem is
> when one copy gets updated.
Forgive my naivete, but how does one copy of a duplicate row get updated? How does one express that update in SQL, referring to one row but not both?
Thank you for disabusing me of my ignorance :) Received on Thu Jul 02 2009 - 18:24:58 CEST