Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)

From: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc
To: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA <leandro(at)dutra(dot)fastmail(dot)fm>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Date: 2006-01-14 16:06:07
Message-ID: 20060114160607.GA10058@mark.mielke.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:42:55PM +0000, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
> Rod Taylor <pg <at> rbt.ca> writes:
> > The basic idea is that most of us break out schemas by creating fake
> > primary keys for the purpose of obtaining performance because using the
> > proper primary key (single or multiple columns) is often very slow.
> This is one thing I simply can't understand.

> If you still declare the natural key(s) as UNIQUEs, you have just made
> performance worse. Now there are two keys to be checked on UPDATEs and
> INSERTs, two indexes to be updated, and probably a SEQUENCE too.

Not to completely defend the practice - but in some applications,
INSERT is much less frequent than UPDATE, and that UPDATE requires a
unique check on the primary key and the surrogate key, as well as an
update, should be considered (and I believe is considered) a
PostgreSQL performance bug. It's undesirable and unnecessary behaviour
for the majority of uses (where they key does not change as a part of
the update).

> Certainly decoupling presentation from storage would be nice, but even before
> that generalised use of surrogate keys seems to me a knee-jerk reaction.

Yes, I agree. As per a previous thread, I'm one of those using it to
generalize my query / update implementation into common base code. I
have other reasons - but I confess to this being the real reason.

In my case, the cost of maintaining the code that queries / updates is
more expensive than the cost of having an extra unique index, and the
storage and performance impacts this has on my data. :-)

Is my primary reason good on its own, without the other more legitimate
justifications? It's good enough for me. I expect others to strongly
disagree.

Cheers,
mark

--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

http://mark.mielke.cc/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2006-01-14 16:17:17 Re: message for constraint
Previous Message Lukas Smith 2006-01-14 15:42:23 Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)