I confused about the description & definition of "key" occuring as terminology for databases and b-trees.

In first case dealing with theory of databases a key is defined as a choice for a in certain sense minimal (see below) subset $ K \subset A := \{A_1,A_2,…,A_n\}$ of a fixed set of attributes $ A_i$ parametrizing a data table (consisting of relations; a single relation is abstraction of a row in the table), where each attribute is literally a column specifying a property of objects = relations.

A key is characterized by property that there exist no two different relations (a relation is a row) which have exactly the same values for all attributes **which belong to the key**. And a key is a **minimal subset with this property**, ie there not exist a proper smaller subset of attributes contained in the key and having the property described in last sentence. Clearly keys are not unique. So the set of a keys is certain subset of the power set of the set attributes $ A_i$ . See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_key

On the other hand the key concept occures as well for b-trees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-tree#Definition

Here keys are a priori numbers or integers and different knots of b-tree contain different totally ordered subsets of keys where the total order on the space of keys is inherited from the order "$ \ge$ " for integers $ \mathbb{Z}$ . Especially the set of keys is a totally ordered subset of integers.

Question: How are the two concept of ‘key’ related to each other? My first idea was that if we consider in light of for definition (as elements of power set of attributes), we can simply randomly enumerate all the keys (that is associate to each key an number; formally speaking to specify an injection $ f:\mathcal{K} \to \mathbb{Z}, K \mapsto f(K)$ where $ \mathcal{K} \subset \Omega(A)$ )

and then treat them as numbers when working with b-trees. Is this exactly the correct connection or is there another deeper one and my approach is wrong?