Re: two primairy key in one table ?
От | Stephan Szabo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: two primairy key in one table ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020707221726.A22659-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: two primairy key in one table ? (Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Curt Sampson wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Angela Luyf wrote: > > > > > I have a database model where a many to many relation is used, so i need > > > to create a table with two primary key. > > > > You can't have multiple primary keys in a table (per SQL spec) but are > > you sure that's what you want as opposed to a single key made of two > > columns? > > I certainly read this as "two primary keys" in the sense of "two > candidate keys," and I was quite suprised that everybody else > interpreted this as "one primary key consisting of data from two > columns." > > However, I don't see any problem here at all. That's because, > relationally speaking, I am of the opinion that the concept of a PRIMARY > KEY is entirely useless. If you've got two candidate keys on a table, > and unique constraints on both of them, there's nothing at all that > makes one better than the other. True, but, trying to use two separate candidate keys on each of the linking columns alone won't really make a many to many relationship. I'm assuming that the linkage is what is supposed to be unique here not the individual parts.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: