[AccessD] 2 quick questions

jwcolby jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Tue May 31 16:08:20 CDT 2011


That is the most lucid explanation you have ever attempted, and suddenly I understand your angst 
(though I do not participate in your angst).

Unfortunately for you, pretty much nobody cares.  I for one long ago split the PK concept into:

1) Pointer
2) Unique index on a selected key.

Having done that the PK is the pointer and the unique index is... a unique index.  Which of course 
is the beauty of doing this.  The surrogate never changes (values or fields) and the unique index 
can change with the flick of a key.  All the messiness of a real world PK goes away.  I embrace that 
with all my heart.  I love it.  Semantics aside, it just works!

We all understand perfectly well that in the relational model the PK is both and cannot be split 
into these two pieces but I am forced to work in the real world where the PK is (at least when 
surrogates are involved) *only* the pointer part of the equation.  *And* more importantly, everybody 
that I am working with and discussing things with (with the *sole* exception of you) uses word PK in 
the same manner as I do.

Thus we pretty much ignore your protestations and keep on doing what we do.

Nobody is claiming that selecting a key to use for ensuring uniqueness, nor creating the unique 
index is not important, it is simply that I (we I dare say) view it as distinct from and not 
necessarily related to the pointer between records.

 >But then all of a sudden, we come to the PK and slap in an auto number and it's the "PK".  But 
it's not because you've shifted from a logical context to a physical one.

Well, the physical world forces us to do so.  Why is this a problem?  We must select the pointer, 
and the logical PK usually sucks as the pointer so there you are.  We were told by the world to call 
the pointer the PK and so we do.  Only you have angst over it.

What is Lead?

1) A metal
2) A piece of metal attached to an electronic component.
3) The position out in front.

We often call distinct and not necessarily related things buy the same word.  We are doing that 
here.  Unfortunately (for you) in this case we are calling both parts (the pointer and the selected 
key) the same name and you go ballistic.

We (or I) understand from whence your angst comes but we (or I) feel no need to participate in the 
angst.  And no matter how you try, you will not force me to participate in your angst.

Go see a shrink and see if you can get over it.  ;)

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 5/31/2011 4:39 PM, Jim Dettman wrote:
> Asgar,
>
> <<I quite agree that an autonumber is not a primary key, but I would then
> hasten to specify that it is not so in the *logical design* - in the
> *physical implementation* it certainly could (and IMO should) be.>>
>
>    Yes but when modeling data relationally the meaning of what a "Primary
> Key" is only occurs in the logical sense.  Relational modeling only deals
> with how data is associated logically and cares nothing about how it is
> physically stored.
>
>    That's why I typically say "Your mixing apples and oranges" when one
> states that an auto number is a "PK", because it's labeled as such in
> database products.  To call it a "PK" is misleading; we all supposedly
> design our databases using the relational model (logically); each table
> represents one thing, we follow the rules of normalization, etc.  But then
> all of a sudden, we come to the PK and slap in an auto number and it's the
> "PK".  But it's not because you've shifted from a logical context to a
> physical one.  That's where the apples and oranges come in.
>
>    John's problem is proof of that.  Even though he has an auto number "PK",
> he's still trying to figure out how to prevent duplicates in his table.
>
> <<So just to get you right I would like to know:
> Do you actually implement the natural key as a primary key and then create a
> unique index on the auto number field? And also: when implementing a foreign
> key, do you make this key point to the natural key rather than to the auto
> number key?>>
>
>    Typically you do the opposite; an auto number for the "PK", and then a
> unique index based for the PK. Or you assign an ID as a surrogate.  It might
> even be an "auto number", but to me, that's no longer an "auto number" even
> though the field type says it is. You might also go the route of checking
> the PK in code by doing your duplicate check based on user input.
>
>    But when all is said and done, in some way, you need to use the PK.  If
> you don't, then you don't have a valid relational model for your data.
>
> <<The disagreement appears to me to be a matter of wording, or if you
> prefer: definition - neither of which are trivial! And distinguishing a
> *logical PK* and a *physical PK* would clarify the discussion.>>
>
>     In a large way it is, but again to me, there is no such thing a PK in a
> physical context.  Being a PK is a lot more then simply labeling a row
> uniquely physically and that always seems to be the bone of contention.
>
> Jim.



More information about the AccessD mailing list