From: | brian <brian(at)zijn-digital(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Surrogate VS natural keys |
Date: | 2007-06-20 14:48:31 |
Message-ID: | 46793E3F.4020103@zijn-digital.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Naz Gassiep wrote:
> OK so which is the "correct" way to do it?
>
> E.g., Say I have a table with users, and a table with clubs, and a table
> that links them. Each user can be in more than one club and each club
> has more than one member. Standard M:M relationship. Which link table is
> the "right" way to do it?
>
> This:
>
> CREATE TABLE (
> userid INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES users,
> clubid INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES clubs,
> PRIMARY KEY (userid, clubid)
> );
>
> Or this:
>
> CREATE TABLE (
> id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
> userid INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES users,
> clubid INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES clubs
> );
>
The former uses a primary key across both columns to enforce a unique
constraint. In the latter, you have a seperate ID column, which does not
enforce that constraint. And you have to ask yourself if you'll ever be
referencing that ID column for anything at all. I doubt i ever would.
Generally, you'd be using this to relate rows from a more generalised
table using either the club ID or the user ID. I can't see how having a
seperate serial ID column would be useful for any kind of select.
brian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | nhrcommu | 2007-06-20 14:54:33 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] Looking for Graphical people for PostgreSQL tradeshow signage |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-06-20 14:48:10 | On managerial choosing (was: Postgres VS Oracle) |