Re: string primary key
От | Mark Gibson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: string primary key |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 446369C6.20802@gibsonsoftware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: string primary key (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: string primary key
Re: string primary key |
Список | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe wrote: > > If you need a unique constraint on the text field anyway, and it's a > natural key, you're generally better of using that field as the pk. > > However, if it's not a natually unique key, then it shouldn't be the pk, > and int is a perhaps better choice. > > There are two VERY oppositional schools of thought on natural versus > artificial keys out there, and neither side is likely to change their > minds. > > My preference is generally for artificial keys (i.e. sequence generated > ones) because I've had requirements change underfoot too many times to > rely on natural keys all the time. > Thanks for your answer. It sounds like your saying that in terms of performance, there is no difference between a character field pk and an integer pk. I've got a followup - The primary key for the table in question consists of 2 varchar fields: picture 'state' and 'city' where city is guaranteed to be unique within a state, and (state, city) form a unique key. This sounds like a good candidate for a sequence key. Is there a difference in terms of performance in this case?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: