Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 515 total)

  • Reply To: Is Data the Future of the Vibrant Web?

    The core of the problem is "ownership". This is the knife plunging in the back of privacy.

    My data is mine--or is it? Take Google for example. Would you agree they...

  • Reply To: Phishing Defenses

    As with all things, it's a double-edged sword.

    While I would never disdain backups for protecting data the backup itself introduces more attack surface, and potentially an unguarded one, or at...

  • Reply To: better DB Design tools?

    Um, it isn't a VS extension, it's standalone but have you considered ModelRight? Not sure exactly why you're developing the DB in VS but ModelRight has a large number of...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    RonKyle wrote:

    A few comments:

     

      <li style="list-style-type: none;">

    1. I often need to use incrementing integers as a primary key.  However, that is never my first choice.  I have seen incrementing integers...
  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    A key is a key whether it is implemented using a PRIMARY KEY constraint, UNIQUE constraint or other means. Referential integrity is something else because not all keys are...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    Hi Steve

    Natural keys serve a very different purpose to surrogates so it's pretty meaningless to say one is "superior" to the other. You will need both. If my patients...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    roger.plowman wrote:

    If they do change they are not surrogate keys

    Suppose I have to merge data from two systems which happen to have conflicting surrogate primary key values even though they...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    Roger, I agree with nearly all you have said but when I said before that natural keys could be unique but mutable you said you "vehemently" disagreed with me!...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    You already said, and I agree, that login names can change. Similarly customer account numbers, so those are two relatively common cases of keys that may need to be...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    roger.plowman wrote:

    As a developer I vehemently disagree. You need a primary key to be mechanically useful. That means it must be immutable and have other desired characteristics, like uniqueness...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    nova wrote:

    Jeff Moden wrote:

    I have to say that I totally disagree with the idea that the Primary Key of any table can be mutable.

    My point was about keys in general, not...

  • Reply To: Give Up on Natural Primary Keys

    Under your interpretation doesn't that mean that all FKs fall under the GDPR? Meaning, ultimately, that relational databases are forbidden?

    Or, if not forbidden, unusable by the vast majority of a...

  • Reply To: Some T-SQL INSERTs DO Follow the Fill Factor! (SQL Oolie)

    Sounds more like a bug than a feature. Is this actually useful for anything beyond bar bets? Why would a single insert that breaks the rules be advantageous? Especially given...

  • Reply To: Timing is Everything

    Who in their right mind makes an employee account privileged? User accounts should NEVER have privileges sufficient to do DBA or system administrator work, that is what admin accounts are...

  • Reply To: Evergreen SQL Server

    Evergreen sounds great--until it breaks an existing behavior.

    I will freely admit MS goes through a Sisyphean effort to maintain backward compatibility and largely succeed. Well, they did until they started...

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 515 total)