| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Developer Best Practices |
| Date: | 2015-08-26 00:28:41 |
| Message-ID: | 55DD0839.3060400@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 08/25/2015 05:17 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> I think a lot of people here are missing the point. I was trying to give
> examples of natural keys, but a lot of people are taking great delight
> in pointing out exceptions to examples, rather than understanding the point.
> So for the sake of argument, a natural key is something that in itself
> is unique and the possibility of a duplicate does not exist.
> Before ANYONE continues to insist that a serial id column is good,
> consider the case where the number of tuples will exceed a bigint.
> Don't say it cannot happen, because it can.
> However, if you have an alphanumeric field, let's say varchar 50, and
> it's guaranteed that it will never have a duplicate, then THAT is a
> natural primary
That is a big IF and a guarantee I would not put money on.
> key and beats the hell out of a generic "id" field.
>
> Further to the point, since I started this thread, I am holding to it
> and will not discuss "natural primary keys" any further.
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2015-08-26 00:32:24 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer Best Practices |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2015-08-26 00:21:46 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer Best Practices |