Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
To: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA <leandro(at)dutra(dot)fastmail(dot)fm>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Date: 2006-01-14 10:28:21
Message-ID: 812B6253-520A-46E1-A120-011F23B558D7@myrealbox.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Jan 13, 2006, at 21:42 , Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:

> If you still declare the natural key(s) as UNIQUEs, you have just made
> performance worse. Now there are two keys to be checked on UPDATEs
> and
> INSERTs, two indexes to be updated, and probably a SEQUENCE too.

For UPDATEs and INSERTs, the "proper" primary key also needs to be
checked, but keys are used for more than just checking uniqueness:
they're also often used in JOINs. Joining against a single integer
I'd think it quite a different proposition (I'd think faster in terms
of performance) than joining against, say, a text column or a
composite key.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lukas Smith 2006-01-14 10:34:31 Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-01-14 09:13:47 Re: message for constraint