| From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |
| Date: | 2011-04-28 19:03:43 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTiny4qkfdkoqv0Mtw5zDdXbvZLqFWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Well there is no fact to back that up but, I will say that most toolkits
> require the use of a synthetic key, rails, django etc....
Usually such tools are born with surrogate keys only, because it's
easier, and either grow up developing natural keys (e.g. the Django
ORM, SQLAlchemy) or fade into uselessness (e.g. SQLObject). But this
speaks more about tools than about the merits of the natural keys: if
the toolkit doesn't support them it's seriously getting in the way in
this and probably in other matters too.
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ernesto Lozano | 2011-04-28 19:05:51 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Core Team |
| Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2011-04-28 18:31:09 | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |