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

Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

From: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
To: Jim Irrer <irrer(at)umich(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Date: 2011-04-28 17:44:02
Message-ID: 4DB9A762.6050104@squeakycode.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - 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 
something.

Really, how could you count?  Was there a poll someplace?  Ask for some 
data.  Otherwise seems like BS to me.

-Andy

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Rob SargentDate: 2011-04-28 17:53:02
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Previous:From: Jim IrrerDate: 2011-04-28 17:29:31
Subject: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

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