Re: primary key and existing unique fields

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Sally Sally <dedeb17(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: primary key and existing unique fields
Date: 2004-10-26 19:21:31
Message-ID: 417EA3BB.1040500@mascari.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Sally Sally wrote:
>
>> Can you please elaborate on the point you just made as to why the
>> primary key should not relate to the data (even for a case when there
>> is an existing unique field that can be used to identify the record)
>>
>
> Here is a good article on the topic:
>
> http://www.devx.com/ibm/Article/20702

That article makes me want to vomit uncontrollably! ;-)

"Business data might also simply be bad -- glitches in the Social
Security Administration's system may lead to different persons having
the same Social Security Number. A surrogate key helps to isolate the
system from such problems."

The surrogate key isn't solving the underlying logical inconsistency
problem. It is being used as a work-around to cover one up. I suspect
the author of being a MySQL user.

Mike Mascari

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Frankel 2004-10-26 19:39:46 basic debugging question
Previous Message Brian Maguire 2004-10-26 19:10:04 Re: what could cause inserts getting queued up and db locking??