On 4/28/2011 12:29 PM, Jim Irrer wrote:
> A colleague of mine insists that using surrogate keys is the
> common practice by an overwhelming margin in relational databases and
> that they are used in 99 percent of large installations. I agree that many
> situations benefit from them, but are they really as pervasive
> as he claims?
> - Jim
I dont see how you could know unless you went to all the "large
installations" and asked. But since its a good idea, and you "should"
do it that way, and because I'm pessimistic, I'd say only 5% of RDB
users do it that way.
Oh! Joke: Why do DB Admins make better lovers? They use surrogates!
Anyway, I'm not a large install, but I use em. That's gotta count for
Really, how could you count? Was there a poll someplace? Ask for some
data. Otherwise seems like BS to me.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Rob Sargent||Date: 2011-04-28 17:53:02|
|Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic)
|Previous:||From: Jim Irrer||Date: 2011-04-28 17:29:31|
|Subject: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys|