From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoiding surrogate keys |
Date: | 2010-04-21 19:18:00 |
Message-ID: | p2pb42b73151004211218q9a1f0772rb5d53c3f033b555d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think I know what I plan to do, but want to throw this out there to see if
> there are differing points of view.
> I have a mailing list table, and 2 of the columns contain values which have
> to be from a list. These are country and status. There are 237 possible
> countries and 3 possible statuses. Now I know some people would assign a
> sequence ID (surrogate key) to the country and status values, and have them
> looked up in separate tables to get the textual value, but I think I'll
> still have those tables, just without an ID column, so 1 column for both the
> countries and statuses tables. This means storing the proper value in the
> main table.
> So instead of
> name, email, country, status
> 'mr smith', 'emailaddress(at)example(dot)com', 44, 2
> 'mrs jones', 'me(at)emailcompany(dot)com', 21, 1
> I'd have
> name, email, country, status
> 'mr smith', 'emailaddress(at)example(dot)com', 'China', 'Registered'
> 'mrs jones', 'me(at)emailcompany(dot)com', 'Belgium', 'Unconfirmed'
> The values of course would be constrained by foreign key lookup to their
> associated tables.
> Are there any serious downsides to this? If so, what would you recommend?
Natural keys:
*) force formal relationships into your key design (this is good)
*) Make your database MUCH easier to follow, browse, and understand
*) in particular cases allow you to skip joins
*) will make your indexes fatter (this is not good)
*) can be a pain if your keys are updated frequently
*) can be a major pain if your key changes in structure (adds a field,
or changes in type)
Surrogate keys:
*) Give you faster joins, but more of them (this is a win/loss
depending on circumstances)
*) Tend to encourage lazy/poor designs, since you hide relationships
behind a value
*) Make the tables more difficult to browse and understand
*) Make updates to keys/key structure trivial
I personally use natural keys when I can and surrogates when I have
to. When I do use a surrogate, I tend to still define the natural key
as primary and simply make a alternate 'unique' constraint for the
surrogate.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-04-21 19:25:16 | Re: Avoiding surrogate keys |
Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2010-04-21 19:17:25 | Re: Avoiding surrogate keys |