C
croy
This is just some commentary--not really a question.
Last month I decided to take a beginning "relational
database" class offered thru my employer (a U.S. state) at
no cost to me. Of course, in reality, it was a class on
Microsoft Access, with no mention that there was any other
DBMS on the face of Earth, but that seems to be the template
for classes in any type of computer software these days. The
class was conducted by an outside company, contracted thru
the state.
What really struck me as interesting was when the instructor
was demonstrating how to create a new table. She made the
"key" field a field which contained data that users would
need to see and work with. When I mentioned that it was my
understanding that key fields should not have any meaning
outside relating a record in one table to a record in
another table(s), she said she had no idea why anyone would
ever think that.
I just thought this might be interesting to folks here....
Last month I decided to take a beginning "relational
database" class offered thru my employer (a U.S. state) at
no cost to me. Of course, in reality, it was a class on
Microsoft Access, with no mention that there was any other
DBMS on the face of Earth, but that seems to be the template
for classes in any type of computer software these days. The
class was conducted by an outside company, contracted thru
the state.
What really struck me as interesting was when the instructor
was demonstrating how to create a new table. She made the
"key" field a field which contained data that users would
need to see and work with. When I mentioned that it was my
understanding that key fields should not have any meaning
outside relating a record in one table to a record in
another table(s), she said she had no idea why anyone would
ever think that.
I just thought this might be interesting to folks here....