From: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sally Sally <dedeb17(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: primary key and existing unique fields |
Date: | 2004-10-26 19:21:31 |
Message-ID: | 417EA3BB.1040500@mascari.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Sally Sally wrote:
>
>> Can you please elaborate on the point you just made as to why the
>> primary key should not relate to the data (even for a case when there
>> is an existing unique field that can be used to identify the record)
>>
>
> Here is a good article on the topic:
>
> http://www.devx.com/ibm/Article/20702
That article makes me want to vomit uncontrollably! ;-)
"Business data might also simply be bad -- glitches in the Social
Security Administration's system may lead to different persons having
the same Social Security Number. A surrogate key helps to isolate the
system from such problems."
The surrogate key isn't solving the underlying logical inconsistency
problem. It is being used as a work-around to cover one up. I suspect
the author of being a MySQL user.
Mike Mascari
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Frankel | 2004-10-26 19:39:46 | basic debugging question |
Previous Message | Brian Maguire | 2004-10-26 19:10:04 | Re: what could cause inserts getting queued up and db locking?? |