Re: Surrogate VS natural keys
От | Rich Shepard |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Surrogate VS natural keys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0706200837130.22882@salmo.appl-ecosys.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Surrogate VS natural keys (brian <brian@zijn-digital.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Surrogate VS natural keys
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, brian wrote: > The former uses a primary key across both columns to enforce a unique > constraint. In the latter, you have a seperate ID column, which does not > enforce that constraint. And you have to ask yourself if you'll ever be > referencing that ID column for anything at all. I doubt i ever would. > Generally, you'd be using this to relate rows from a more generalised > table using either the club ID or the user ID. I can't see how having a > seperate serial ID column would be useful for any kind of select. Also, the reason for a third, M-M, table is to relate multiple players and multiple clubs. If you think of the logic involved, your third table has only one row for each player-club combination. Therefore, each row is unique by definition and a surrogate key adds no value. Rich -- Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | The Environmental Permitting Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. | Accelerator(TM) <http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: