| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |
| Date: | 2011-05-03 21:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1304456913.6858.151.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 13:35 -0600, Rob Sargent wrote:
> Sorry, but I'm confused, but that's common. Isn't a "natural key" to be
> compose solely from the attributes of the entity? As in a subset of the
> columns of the table in a third-normalish world. Isn't tacking on
> another column with a concocted id joining the "pervassiveness"?
Not in my opinion. Before cars existed, there was no driver's license
number. The DMV (as it's called in California, anyway) created it, and
it's now a key that they can trust to be unique. It's also an attribute
of the entity now, because it's printed on the cards you hand to people.
The thing that I think is a mistake is to use generated IDs like an
internal implementation detail (i.e. hide them like pointers); then at
the same time mix them into the data model.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-03 21:08:37 | Re: postgres segfaulting on pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2011-05-03 19:35:28 | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |