| From: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Irrer <irrer(at)umich(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |
| Date: | 2011-04-28 17:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4DB9A762.6050104@squeakycode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 4/28/2011 12:29 PM, Jim Irrer wrote:
> A colleague of mine insists that using surrogate keys is the
> common practice by an overwhelming margin in relational databases and
> that they are used in 99 percent of large installations. I agree that many
> situations benefit from them, but are they really as pervasive
> as he claims?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Jim
I dont see how you could know unless you went to all the "large
installations" and asked. But since its a good idea, and you "should"
do it that way, and because I'm pessimistic, I'd say only 5% of RDB
users do it that way.
Oh! Joke: Why do DB Admins make better lovers? They use surrogates!
Anyway, I'm not a large install, but I use em. That's gotta count for
something.
Really, how could you count? Was there a poll someplace? Ask for some
data. Otherwise seems like BS to me.
-Andy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2011-04-28 17:53:02 | Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |
| Previous Message | Jim Irrer | 2011-04-28 17:29:31 | pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys |