On 14/03/13 17:05 +0100, Wolfgang Keller wrote: > > > If you're advocating it then you probably won't need to know any > > > further arguments since you've already understood the issue > > > yourself: That data integrity is what counts. And without composite > > > keys, that can't work for any non-trivial application that requires > > > a thoroughly normalised schema of significant complexity, since > > > proper unification of records in such a schema requires composite > > > keys. One of the issues that's practically impossible to solve with > > > surrogate keys is explained in database design textbooks under the > > > title "overlapping foreign keys". > > > > I'm not sure to understand exactly the "overlapping foreign keys" (as > > you did not give any reference). > > Just look it up in any decent database design textbook. ;-) > > In Belgium, the faculty of computer science at the university of Namur > resp. Rever have online "entry level" tutorial PDFs for free that > mention it. > > It's a standard issue just like normalisation (in fact it's sometimes > mentioned as being correlated with 3NF/BCNF) and I am not going to > "discuss" whether composite (natural) keys are necessary or not. > > Besides, there are certainly loads of other unification issues that > absolutely require composite keys, this is just an exemplary example > that has a distinctive, well-known name and that is commonly taught in > database design classes. I am not even a computer scientist and still my > professor at university has mentioned it. > > Basta.
Thank you for not giving any links that confinces me that it is a "must have". -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp3ZR1XjV8kp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
