| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lew <noone(at)lwsc(dot)ehost-services(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding surrogate keys |
| Date: | 2010-05-01 18:50:43 |
| Message-ID: | r2pb42b73151005011150me8412577y2b76e48a73f7589a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Lew <noone(at)lwsc(dot)ehost-services(dot)com> wrote:
> Philippe Lang wrote:
>>
>> I think nobody mentioned Object-Relational mappers.
>> If you intend to used one (or think you may be using one in the future),
>> using surrogate keys is more straightforward, if not necessary.
>
> Neither of those claims is even slightly true. Using Hibernate, EclipseLink
> or OpenJPA (for Java applications), natural keys are sufficient and far more
> straightforward than surrogate keys.
right -- to be fair though is quite a bit of (generally bad) software
out there that assumes or at least heavily encourages surrogate keys.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-01 19:08:12 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server |
| Previous Message | Thomas Løcke | 2010-05-01 18:47:38 | PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server |