Re: Trying to define Surrogates
From: J M Davitt <jdavitt_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:04:40 GMT
Message-ID: <cC6Fg.55212$vl5.16430_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
>
>
> It would, in fact, qualify as an 'intelligent key' with all the term
> implies.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:04:40 GMT
Message-ID: <cC6Fg.55212$vl5.16430_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
Bob Badour wrote:
> erk wrote:
>
>> JOG wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> Either way, the key would be not an identifier for the print, but >> derived directly from the print domain. That's different than a >> surrogate key as normally defined.
>
>
> It would, in fact, qualify as an 'intelligent key' with all the term
> implies.