![]() | |
#81
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Roy Hann" <specia... (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat> wrote in message news:982dnVavb_XQM9DXnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net... My point is that the rows are logically duplicate but they have been rendered spuriously distinct by tacking on a meaningless but unique attribute. *So such an update is easy (perhaps inevitable). This is an enormously important point, one that gets overlooked time and time again in the discussion of databases. |
#82
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jul 3, 3:19*am, "Walter Mitty" <wami... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote: "Roy Hann" <specia... (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat> wrote in message news:982dnVavb_XQM9DXnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net... My point is that the rows are logically duplicate but they have been rendered spuriously distinct by tacking on a meaningless but unique attribute. *So such an update is easy (perhaps inevitable). This is an enormously important point, one that gets overlooked time and time again in the discussion of databases. Oh, I think I understand the point now. Indentical duplicates are preferable to spuriously distinct rows. |
|
With identical duplicates, you know you have duplicate data, and it stays that way. |
|
With spuriously distinct rows, you may not become aware of their spurious nature without non-trivial scrutiny. Correct? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |