RE: [SQL] Database Design Question

OK... Fair Enough... Good Points indeed y'all.

Well... What about the problem of users trying to Query the Database??

You know... like when using Crystal Reports or something?.

SELECT * from HistoryTable
WHERE PartID = SomeInteger

vs

SELECT * from HistoryTable
WHERE PartNum = 12345636 AND PartRev = C

How are they supposed to know What the PartID is ??

Anyway, that I why I was considering changing... current users always have trouble peering into the database... They don't quite get it.

At 02:31 PM 7/27/01 -0400, Mike Mascari wrote:
>I prefer using unique integer ids generated from sequences rather than
>keys composed of meaningful values.
>
>Advantages:
>
>Client side applications can store/handle the unique integer ids more
>readily than having to deal with composite primary keys composed of
>varying data types. For example, I can stuff the id associated with a
>particular record easily in list boxes, combo boxes, edit controls, etc.
>via SetItemData() or some other appropriate method. Its a bit more
>complicated to track database records via composite keys of something
>like: part no, vendor no, vendor group.
>
>Updating the data doesn't require cascading updates. If you use keys
>with meaning, the referential integrity constraints must support
>cascading updates so if the key changes in the primary table the change
>is cascaded to all referencing tables as well. Earlier versions of most
>databases (Access, Oracle, etc.) only provided cascading deletes under
>the assumption you would be using sequence generated keys.
>
>Downside:
>
>Many queries might require more joins against the primary table to fetch
>the relevant information associated with the numerical id, whereas keys
>composed of solely the values with which they are associated might not
>require the joins, which will speed some applications. I now have some
>queries with 20-way joins. But PostgreSQL provides a way to explicitly
>set the path the planner will choose and so the execution of the query
>is instantaneous. I'm not sure about other databases. In earlier
>versions, I had to denormalize a bit solely for performance reasons.
>
>In the past, I used to use composite keys and switched to the purely
>sequence generated path and don't regret it at all. Of course, you'll
>still have a unique constraint on the what-would-have-been meaningful
>primary key.
>
>Hope that helps,
>
>Mike Mascari
>mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com
>
>Gonzo Rock wrote:
>>
>> A Question for those of you who consider yourself crack Database Designers.
>>
>> I am currently moving a large database(100+Tables) into pgSQL... with the intention of deploying against 'any' SQL database in the future. The development side will be rigorously using Standard SQL constructs with no unique/proprietary extensions.
>>
>> My question concerns establishing the relationships.
>>
>> Currently Relationships between tables are established via a Unique Integer ID like this:
>>
>> *=APrimaryKey
>>
>> PartTypes Customer Parts
>> --------- -------- -----
>> PartTypeID CustomerID PartID
>> *PartType *Customer PartTypeID
>> Address CustomerID
>> *PartNumber(2FieldPrimaryKey)
>> *PartRevision(2FieldPrimaryKey)
>> PartName
>>
>>
>> HOWEVER; I have read lots of texts describing the Relational Design should be instead like this:
>>
>> *=APrimaryKey
>>
>> PartTypes Customer Parts
>> --------- -------- -----
>> *PartType *Customer PartType
>> Address *PartNumber(2FieldPrimaryKey)
>> *PartRevison(2FieldPrimaryKey)
>> PartName
>> Customer
>>
>> Both Techniques have a unique foreign key back to the parent tables but one uses No.Meaningful.Info.Integer.Data for the ForeignKey while the second uses Human.Understandable.ForeignKeys
>>
>> Is one recommended over the other??? Sure appreciate the commentary before I get in too deep with all these tables.
>>
>> Thanks!
>