Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:48:01 GMT
Message-ID: <l_Pzg.301627$iF6.177946_at_pd7tw2no>
>> Not exactly. Any candidate key value is sufficient to identify a
>> proposition within a single database state, but that doesn't mean that it is
>> sufficient across multiple successive states. While it's true that if two
>> things are indistinguishible, they are the same thing, the reverse is not
>> necessarily true: it's not a caterpillar that emerges from a chrysalis, it's
>> a butterfly.
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:48:01 GMT
Message-ID: <l_Pzg.301627$iF6.177946_at_pd7tw2no>
JOG wrote:
> Brian Selzer wrote: > [snip for brevity]
>> Not exactly. Any candidate key value is sufficient to identify a
>> proposition within a single database state, but that doesn't mean that it is
>> sufficient across multiple successive states. While it's true that if two
>> things are indistinguishible, they are the same thing, the reverse is not
>> necessarily true: it's not a caterpillar that emerges from a chrysalis, it's
>> a butterfly.
> > An interesting point - but what makes the caterpillar and the butterfly > the same thing?
Can't put it succinctly, but I think it has something to do with sex.
p Received on Tue Aug 01 2006 - 23:48:01 CEST