Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Date: 2011-04-28 18:20:38
Message-ID: 20110428182038.GK11061@shinkuro.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Jim Irrer wrote:

> common practice by an overwhelming margin in relational databases and
> that they are used in 99 percent of large installations.

94.68536% of all the claims I ever hear are obviously pulled out of
thin air.

What conclusion does your colleague want to draw from this
overwhelming (if perhaps statistically dubious) penetration? Surely
the argument doesn't conclude, "Therefore we should do that too?" I
seem to recall my mother making some remark about others jumping off
cliffs.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2011-04-28 18:26:50 Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys
Previous Message Rob Sargent 2011-04-28 17:53:02 Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys