Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
От | Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | loom.20060118T140650-865@post.gmane.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: enums (Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby <jnasby <at> pervasive.com> writes: > a) the optimizer does a really poor job on multi-column index statistics So it should be fixed? And there are a *lot* of singular, natural keys. > b) If each parent record will have many children, the space savings from > using a surrogate key can be quite large Not such a common case. > c) depending on how you view things, putting actual keys all over the > place is denormalized How come? Never! > Generally, I just use surrogate keys for everything unless performance > dictates something else. What I am proposing is the reverse: use natural keys for everything unless performance dictates something else. In support of my PoV: http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/007327.asp?rss=1
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: