Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- From: Jon Heggland <jon.heggland@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:22:32 +0200
Marshall wrote:
It is also true
that a system that supported FDs explicitly could express
everything that one that had only uniqueness could; in other
words, one concept is strictly more powerful than the other,
and I propose there is a language design principle that
says that in that situation, you should not include the weaker
concept.
By that reasoning, FDs shouldn't be included if you have general
database constraints. And I want those.
One side comment: I note that the use case for a means of abstracting
constraints seems to come up repeatedly.
Cf. C. J. Date: Database In Depth (2005), p. 174--175.
--
Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- From: Marshall
- Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- References:
- Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- From: Marshall
- Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- From: Marshall
- Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- Prev by Date: Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- Next by Date: Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- Previous by thread: Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- Next by thread: Re: Functional Dependencies > Uniqueness Constraints
- Index(es):