<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Meaning of Keys</title>
	<atom:link href="http://maggienelson.com/2009/02/the-meaning-of-keys/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://maggienelson.com/2009/02/the-meaning-of-keys/</link>
	<description>databases and code goodness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:53:35 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Rules of (Software) Engagement - Maggie Nelson</title>
		<link>http://maggienelson.com/2009/02/the-meaning-of-keys/comment-page-1/#comment-200</link>
		<dc:creator>The Rules of (Software) Engagement - Maggie Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://maggienelson.com/?p=196#comment-200</guid>
		<description>[...] in how different databases implement standard SQL (I talked about this a little bit in a post about The Meaning of Keys). When you see something that Oracle has and MySQL and vice versa is sometimes tied to this [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in how different databases implement standard SQL (I talked about this a little bit in a post about The Meaning of Keys). When you see something that Oracle has and MySQL and vice versa is sometimes tied to this [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cal Evans</title>
		<link>http://maggienelson.com/2009/02/the-meaning-of-keys/comment-page-1/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Cal Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://maggienelson.com/?p=196#comment-153</guid>
		<description>Hi Maggie!

I totally agree with this statement:

&quot;A primary key only has one purpose: to uniquely identify a record in a table.&quot; I think it should be tattooed on every CS101 student to get the point across.

I also totally agree with this statement:

&quot;As you can see: keys with meaning aren’t good or bad - they simply serve a purpose.&quot; 

On the surface, the may seem to be contradictory except for one key word in the first statement, PRIMARY. A primary key&#039;s sole function is to identify a record. it should have no meaning other than that. it&#039;s fine to have other keys that are unique to a record (email address, phone number, SSN, etc) but these should be considered CANDIDATE keys, not primary keys.

Keys with meaning are fine. Primary keys with meaning will cause the space-time continuum to fold in on itself.  :)

IMHO, etc.
=C=

p.s. GREAT article, thanks for sharing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Maggie!</p>
<p>I totally agree with this statement:</p>
<p>&#8220;A primary key only has one purpose: to uniquely identify a record in a table.&#8221; I think it should be tattooed on every CS101 student to get the point across.</p>
<p>I also totally agree with this statement:</p>
<p>&#8220;As you can see: keys with meaning aren’t good or bad &#8211; they simply serve a purpose.&#8221; </p>
<p>On the surface, the may seem to be contradictory except for one key word in the first statement, PRIMARY. A primary key&#8217;s sole function is to identify a record. it should have no meaning other than that. it&#8217;s fine to have other keys that are unique to a record (email address, phone number, SSN, etc) but these should be considered CANDIDATE keys, not primary keys.</p>
<p>Keys with meaning are fine. Primary keys with meaning will cause the space-time continuum to fold in on itself.  :)</p>
<p>IMHO, etc.<br />
=C=</p>
<p>p.s. GREAT article, thanks for sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
