Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Date: 2011-04-28 18:20:38
Message-ID: 20110428182038.GK11061@shinkuro.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Jim Irrer wrote:

> common practice by an overwhelming margin in relational databases and
> that they are used in 99 percent of large installations.  

94.68536% of all the claims I ever hear are obviously pulled out of
thin air.

What conclusion does your colleague want to draw from this
overwhelming (if perhaps statistically dubious) penetration?  Surely
the argument doesn't conclude, "Therefore we should do that too?"  I
seem to recall my mother making some remark about others jumping off
cliffs.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2011-04-28 18:26:50
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Previous:From: Rob SargentDate: 2011-04-28 17:53:02
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group