|From:||Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>|
|To:||Jim Irrer <irrer(at)umich(dot)edu>|
|Subject:||Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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?
> - 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
Really, how could you count? Was there a poll someplace? Ask for some
data. Otherwise seems like BS to me.
|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|