| From: | "Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steve Midgley" <science(at)misuse(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Finding sequential records |
| Date: | 2008-09-30 14:02:05 |
| Message-ID: | 396486430809300702g1502d7f4o2947ab10d1f76ae0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Steve Midgley <science(at)misuse(dot)org> wrote:
> Any reason why using serial PK's with "compound
> natural unique indices" is better/worse than just using natural PK's?
Not really, surrogate keys will always work well so long as unwanted
duplicates are constrained. Surrogate Keys will allow as much
flexibility and versatility as is possible. However as the case of
unwanted duplicates illustrates, sometimes flexibility and versatility
is always wanted. So if flexibility and versatility is valued less
than the ability to add inflexible constraints (beyond preventing
duplicates) across multiple relationships, then using natural primary
keys becomes very attractive.
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | az | 2008-09-30 14:24:21 | Re: optimizing a query over tree-like structure |
| Previous Message | Oliveiros Cristina | 2008-09-30 12:21:09 | Re: optimizing a query over tree-like structure |