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

Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Date: 2011-05-03 01:52:45
Message-ID: BANLkTi=ByyLAS5zn_94O3B=cWrJx7DN+iw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> I'm now strongly in favour of keeping an internal key that users never
> see, and having separate user-visible identifiers. The users can demand
> that those identifiers change format or generation method and it's an

It's far easier to change a unique constraint on the fly than a PK in
a busy production database.

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-05-03 01:56:06
Subject: We need you to beta-test PostgreSQL 9.1
Previous:From: Craig RingerDate: 2011-05-03 01:43:51
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

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