Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
От | Rob Sargent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4DB9A97E.4010804@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys (Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 04/28/2011 11:44 AM, Andy Colson wrote: > On 4/28/2011 12:29 PM, Jim Irrer wrote: >> A colleague of mine insists that using surrogate keys is the >> common practice by an overwhelming margin in relational databases and >> that they are used in 99 percent of large installations. I agree that >> many >> situations benefit from them, but are they really as pervasive >> as he claims? >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Jim > > I dont see how you could know unless you went to all the "large > installations" and asked. But since its a good idea, and you "should" do > it that way, and because I'm pessimistic, I'd say only 5% of RDB users > do it that way. > > Oh! Joke: Why do DB Admins make better lovers? They use surrogates! > > Anyway, I'm not a large install, but I use em. That's gotta count for > something. > > Really, how could you count? Was there a poll someplace? Ask for some > data. Otherwise seems like BS to me. > > -Andy > Hm, I get the feeling that only the good folks at Hibernate seem to think using a "natural key" is the _only_ way to go.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: