Re: Any *real* reason to choose a natural, composite PK over a surrogate, simple PK?

From: dananrg(at)yahoo(dot)com
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Any *real* reason to choose a natural, composite PK over a surrogate, simple PK?
Date: 2006-06-08 14:00:25
Message-ID: 1149775225.795910.74710@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

If one decides to use a composite key, beyond how many attributes
should one seriously consider creating a surrogate key instead? 4? 5?
Less? I have seen a composite key composed of 5 attributes and thought
- why? What's the value over a surrogate key?

I guess choosing a candidate key (presuming the candidates are
legitimate candidates) is at least partially a matter of taste. What
taste would compel people to choose composite keys composed of more
than 2-3 attributes?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jqpx37 2006-06-08 14:05:54 Password for postgresql superuser?
Previous Message dananrg 2006-06-08 12:48:57 Any *real* reason to choose a natural, composite PK over a surrogate, simple PK?