This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I think this page is very unhelpful unless you know full database terminology, in which case you wouldn't need to look it up. Can someone put up an example that would give a normal person an idea of what this is? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would agree. An example is definitely needed here; especially since the page for Primary/Unique Key has examples for its definition, yet this page is pretty useless if you need to see a specific example of a compound key in relation to a table or tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
EDIT*: Eh... they explain what it is, but I've never heard that used anywhere.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of achademic references use simple key or simple attribute to represent a single component with an independent execution. One being the well regarded Connnnolly.T, Begg.C. (2010) 'Database Systems: A practical Approach to Design, implementation, and Management' Fifth Edition. Adison-Wesley p.329. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProcerusDecor (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merger not done. There was no consensus to merge. WTF? (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is, at best, a paragraph or two worth of information that should be presented in a subsection of the Unique key article. Recommend merging this article into that one. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest the creation of a Key(database) artical which contains both of the suggested files.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a link to a site that lists all the keys in summary. Would it not be better to have all RDBMS key references as a single page not just add this to the Unigue key. and have each of the terms asa sub reference as suggested? I hope the added link is useful. Also on the site is a terms of reference section. Again is it worth lifting this and other pages in Wikipedia to a single terms of reference page? ProcerusDecor (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest that unique key page not be amended with this information. Instead the aforementioned key database page should be used to combine all key field information pages together for the user to better find the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this should not be added to unique key, but combined with an RDBS Terminology page or a page on keys. Uniqueness is not a relevant distinction between compound and composite keys. Also: students with only just enough database knowledge to be dangerous frequently confuse these terms (compound and composite) or use them interchangeably, so the couple of paragraphs certainly have some merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.