Re: PostgreSQL Developer Best Practices

On 08/25/2015 08:40 AM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> Stop being so technical. When we/I speak of natural keys, we are talking
> about the column
> that would NATURALly lend itself as the primary key.

Pretty sure this is a technical list:)

> No one ever said a number is not natural. just that there is no need to
> duplicate uniqueness
> with a separate number.

I would agree, but I have interacted with people, especially PHBes,
where a duplicate 'hidden' key is a life saver. See more below.

>
> IOW: If we have an account table, then the account_id or account_no
> would be the primary key. There is no need to have a separate
> serial id as the primary key.
>
> Likewise, if we have a car table, then registration (or
> vehicle_id) is preferred.
>
> EG: Good
> CREATE TABLE car
> (
> registration_no varchar(30) not null,
> car_make varchar(25) not null,
> model varchar(15) not null;
> build_year date not null;
> owner varchar(50),
> CONSTRAINT car_pk PRIMARY KEY (registration_no)
> );
>
> bad
> CREATE TABLE car
> (
> id serial not null,
> registration_no varchar(30) not null,
> car_make varchar(25) not null,
> model varchar(15) not null;
> build_year date not null;
> owner varchar(50),
> CONSTRAINT car_pk PRIMARY KEY (id)
> );
>
> The benefit in avoiding arbitrary and simple values for the key is that
> it makes
> the database design much more logical.
>
> Consider:
> SELECT c.registration_no,
> c.car_make,
> p.part_no
> FROM car c
> JOIN parts p ON ( p.registration_no = c.registration_no)
> WHERE registration_no = <some_var>;

Pretty sure parts are not unique to an exact vehicle, unless you are
talking a totally handmade one. They are not even unique to make and
model. As an example, I used to work on Class B Isuzu trucks. These
models(FTR) where also built for Chevrolet as the Forward models. So
right of the bat there where two part numbers for each part, one that
started with 9 if you got it from Chevrolet and one with 11 from Isuzu,
if memory serves. Then Isuzu decided to reorganize their part numbers,
so that introduced another number, all pointing to the exact same part.
Then there where those parts available from the parts houses(NAPA, etc).

Then there was the greenhouse I worked for where we supplied UPC coded
tags for our customers. In the beginning, it was simple, the item
portion of the UPC was unique and with the company prefix served as a
'natural' key for the tags. Then the chain stores we worked with must
have all gone to the same seminar on how to be Walmart and decided they
did not want unique numbers, but UPCs tied to price groups that covered
a variety of plants. Luckily, I was too stupid to know surrogate keys
where bad and had a sequence attached to the tag table. This then became
the tag id and made life a lot easier during the transition. It still
remains there, because people are people and 'natural' tends to be
artificial and transient.

>
> versus:
> SELECT c.registration_no,
> c.car_make,
> p.part_no
> FROM car c
> JOIN parts p ON ( p.id <http://p.id> = c.id <http://c.id>)
> WHERE registration_no = <some_var>;
>
> Why join on id when registration_no is better?
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Adrian Klaver
> <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 08/24/2015 08:44 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Melvin Davidson
> <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> You are right, he was probably talking about FK's. I was
> just so frustrated about people insisting that using "ID" as
> the primary key in every table is a "good" idea,
> I didn't bother to reply previously. I stand firm on my
> belief that the primary key should be something meaningful
> and NOT "id" just for the sake of having a unique numeric key.
>
> What, pray tell, is the unique natural key of person in any
> meaningfully large domain such as state? Certainly not name +
> birthdate. Current address isn’t guaranteed. Social isn’t
> reliable and actually not truly unique.
>
>
> To add:
>
> 1) Who determined that a number is not natural?
>
> 2) One of the older unique natural keys (genus, species) is not so
> unique. I am a fisheries biologist by training and in my time the
> 'unique' identifier for various fishes has changed. Now that
> ichthyologists have discovered DNA testing, it can be expected there
> will be even more changes. This is even more apparent when you go
> back in in history. As an example:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_trout
>
> Rainbow trout
>
> Current
>
> Oncorhynchus mykiss
>
> Past
>
> Salmo mykiss Walbaum, 1792
> Parasalmo mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)
> Salmo purpuratus Pallas, 1814
> Salmo penshinensis Pallas, 1814
> Parasalmo penshinensis (Pallas, 1814)
> Salmo gairdnerii Richardson, 1836 <--The one I learned.
> Fario gairdneri (Richardson, 1836)
> Oncorhynchus gairdnerii (Richardson, 1836)
> Salmo gairdnerii gairdnerii Richardson, 1836
> Salmo rivularis Ayres, 1855
> Salmo iridea Gibbons, 1855
> Salmo gairdnerii irideus Gibbons, 1855
> Salmo irideus Gibbons, 1855
> Trutta iridea (Gibbons, 1855)
> Salmo truncatus Suckley, 1859
> Salmo masoni Suckley, 1860
> Oncorhynchus kamloops Jordan, 1892
> Salmo kamloops (Jordan, 1892)
> Salmo rivularis kamloops (Jordan, 1892)
> Salmo gairdneri shasta Jordan, 1894
> Salmo gilberti Jordan, 1894
> Salmo nelsoni Evermann, 1908
>
>
> All the above point to the same fish and have appeared and appear in
> articles and reports about said fish. Lets not even get into the
> common name situation:).
>
>
> Even given that there are models which are made of entities with
> legitimate attributes which per force define a unique instance,
> I see no benefit in avoiding the convenience of an arbitrary and
> simple value for the key. Is it the overhead of generating and
> storing one more value per tuple that you can’t abide?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Melvin Davidson*
> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com