From: | David Salisbury <salisbury(at)globe(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | Rich Shepard <rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Strategy for Primary Key Generation When Populating Table |
Date: | 2012-02-10 01:18:19 |
Message-ID: | 4F34705B.6090800@globe.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2/9/12 5:25 PM, Rich Shepard wrote:
> For water quality data the primary key is (site, date, param) since
> there's only one value for a given parameter collected at a specific
> site on
> a single day. No surrogate key needed.
Yea. I was wondering if the surrogate key debate really boils down to the
composite primary key debate. Seems so in my mind, though one could
maybe come up with a combination. Basically aliases of values and
composite those. Perhaps that's the ultimate methodology. :)
> The problem with real world data is that different taxonomic levels are
> used. Not all organisms can be identified to species; some (such as the
> round worms, or nematodes) are at the level of order. That means there
> is no
> combination of columns that are consistently not NULL. Sigh.
I didn't know that about worms. I did know grasses only went to the genus.
You could make a tall skinny self referential table though, and nothing
would be null and everything would be unique ( I think, unless certain
taxon values can appear under different higher order taxon values ).
Thanks for the view points out there.
Cheers,
-ds
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2012-02-10 01:29:31 | Re: Strategy for Primary Key Generation When Populating Table |
Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2012-02-10 00:28:21 | Re: Strategy for Primary Key Generation When Populating Table |