On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:01:35 -0800 J Decker <d3c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then how would you properly find the children? Or find any > information about their parent, the child would have to in turn be > deleted. > > foreign keys are as good as pointers. That's an interesting way to put it. One of Codd's first papers specifically rejected pointers as a database mechanism, and the relational model relies entirely on values. That there are no pointers is by design. I accept that SQL foreign keys require a unique referent. I have to; it's a fact. I'm not convinced that's good or necessary. I can believe it's convenient, in the same way that "bag theory" is convenient to avoid ensuring uniqueness in SQL. --jkl _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
