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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-general by date

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