Re: Multiple Columns Keys - Good or Bad idea?
От | Ryan Ho |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multiple Columns Keys - Good or Bad idea? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01061116482600.01482@ignis.ajiang.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Multiple Columns Keys - Good or Bad idea? (Rob Brown-Bayliss <rob@ZOOstation.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: Multiple Columns Keys - Good or Bad idea?
|
Список | pgsql-novice |
On Monday 11 June 2001 16:09, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote: > Hi, this is not really a postgres question, more of a design question so > I hope no one minds... > > I have to intergrate data from several sites, updates and new data, etc > etc, so I have come up with the following idea: > > all tables will have a sequence and location column, these two columns > are the primary key. each site has it's own location number and own > sequence inserted by default. > > Is this a good idea? would it be better to have just the sequence as > primary key, and make sure each site has a different sequence (ie: site > one starting at 1, site 2 starting at 10,000,000) > > The second idea seems a bit kludgy to me, but if I go the first way I > have two have two cloumns as links in each table, you know SELECT * FROM > foo WHERE key1=77 and key2=4 > > Stuck and awaiting help... > > Thanks I'd go for the first method. If you need to refer to the integrated table often (e.g. as foreign key in other tables), it may be a good idea to give it a new sequence. So the integrated table will have location, the sequence number at the remote site, and a unique local sequence number. Regards -- Ho Siaw Ping, Ryan IT Consultant Database / Web Apps
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: