From: | Ryan Ho <ryanho(at)cyberronins(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rob Brown-Bayliss <rob(at)ZOOstation(dot)cc>, PGSQL Novice List <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple Columns Keys - Good or Bad idea? |
Date: | 2001-06-11 08:48:26 |
Message-ID: | 01061116482600.01482@ignis.ajiang.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Monday 11 June 2001 16:09, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
> Hi, this is not really a postgres question, more of a design question so
> I hope no one minds...
>
> I have to intergrate data from several sites, updates and new data, etc
> etc, so I have come up with the following idea:
>
> all tables will have a sequence and location column, these two columns
> are the primary key. each site has it's own location number and own
> sequence inserted by default.
>
> Is this a good idea? would it be better to have just the sequence as
> primary key, and make sure each site has a different sequence (ie: site
> one starting at 1, site 2 starting at 10,000,000)
>
> The second idea seems a bit kludgy to me, but if I go the first way I
> have two have two cloumns as links in each table, you know SELECT * FROM
> foo WHERE key1=77 and key2=4
>
> Stuck and awaiting help...
>
> Thanks
I'd go for the first method. If you need to refer to the integrated table
often (e.g. as foreign key in other tables), it may be a good idea to give it
a new sequence. So the integrated table will have location, the sequence
number at the remote site, and a unique local sequence number.
Regards
--
Ho Siaw Ping, Ryan
IT Consultant
Database / Web Apps
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Roth | 2001-06-11 16:14:43 | FATAL ERROR |
Previous Message | Rob Brown-Bayliss | 2001-06-11 08:09:54 | Multiple Columns Keys - Good or Bad idea? |