| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: surrogate key or not? |
| Date: | 2004-07-23 17:17:11 |
| Message-ID: | 200407231017.11605.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Achilleus,
> In other words, with surrogate keys, you eliminate the chance
> that your original design was flawed due to lack of important
> initial knowledge.
Well, you don't *eliminate* it, but you do decrease it.
I'd say, yes, this is an important 4th reason:
4) Your spec may be incorrect and surrogate keys make it easier to make design
changes in production.
Once again, though, this is an *implementation* issue and not a *logic* issue,
as I asserted ...
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-07-23 17:20:59 | Re: surrogate key or not? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-23 14:07:48 | Re: surrogate key or not? |