Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

Brian Selzer wrote:
> So, what you're saying is (1) that anything that can be
> discussed must be distinguishable from every other thing
> that can be or has been discussed, (2) that anything that
> can be discussed must have at least one identifying
> set of properties that is guaranteed to remain constant
> throughout the discussion ...

With regard to (2), my reading of JOG was that he said a tuple ("thing" as you call it) must have at least one identifying set of attributes ("properties" as you call them) that is guaranteed to remain /unique/ (not constant) with respect to the relation (ie there is always a key) throughout the discussion. Is this not correct?

[snip arguments about keys "changing" values]

I don't think he ever said keys had to remain constant. Rather they must remain unique. So much of your argumentation above may not apply.

• Keith -- Fraud 6