Re: Avoiding surrogate keys

From: "Mark Watson" <mark(dot)watson(at)jurisconcept(dot)ca>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Avoiding surrogate keys
Date: 2010-04-21 20:51:59
Message-ID: 6E83A4C5A97B4943B3ABBD82782CC8D4@Gateway
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

I agree, as long as one needs the country names in only one language.
-Mark
(Sorry Martin- forgot to "Reply to all" the last time)
________________________________________
De : pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] De la part de Martin Gainty
Envoyé : 21 avril 2010 16:38 À : wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com Cc :
pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org Objet : Re: [GENERAL] Avoiding surrogate keys

...

static information such as country names *should be* de-normalised into
non-indexed columns of the driving table as you have already done

if on the other hand the column information country names were changing were
dynamic then you would want to keep them in their respective table

as country code 001 will always be US (and the remaining countries and
country code will never change) i would suggest keeping the full name in the
driving table (same goes with state/province data btw)

...

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-04-21 21:08:16 Re: Returning a char from a C-language function
Previous Message Brian Peschel 2010-04-21 20:41:26 Best way to replicate to large number of nodes