Tom.Thomson (5/11/2011) WayneS (5/11/2011)
One niggle: asking people to assume that a schema is valid when a table doesn't have a primary key may encourage a very bad habit if some of your audience don't know any better. Maybe "pretend" would have been a better choice of word than "assume".
Tom, I think it was referring to the schema "Playground", which the table was created in.
Ah, yes, probably. My mistake. I find it hard at times to remember that MS misuses this particular term so horribly, and my reaction
was as it was because I interpreted "schema" as "schema" rather than as what MS calls "schema". Must remember loony MS terminology in future
True many people are unaware of all the implications of "schema" in SQL as it covers many things "to make SQL databases and objects self-describing". Things like structure and integrity constraints, security and authorization specifications, object identifiers, features and packages, support of features, implementation information and sizing items, and schema is actually divided into "information" and "definition" schemas.
actually applies to the description of schema by many MS DBA's, not Microsoft itself. Unfortunately, many DBA's just never really learn how broadly the term applies and tend to assume the third position of the name resolution process only...
But we're all learning!!
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems