From: | Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA <leandro(at)dutra(dot)fastmail(dot)fm> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Date: | 2006-01-18 13:08:53 |
Message-ID: | loom.20060118T140650-865@post.gmane.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby <jnasby <at> pervasive.com> writes:
> a) the optimizer does a really poor job on multi-column index statistics
So it should be fixed?
And there are a *lot* of singular, natural keys.
> b) If each parent record will have many children, the space savings from
> using a surrogate key can be quite large
Not such a common case.
> c) depending on how you view things, putting actual keys all over the
> place is denormalized
How come? Never!
> Generally, I just use surrogate keys for everything unless performance
> dictates something else.
What I am proposing is the reverse: use natural keys for everything unless
performance dictates something else.
In support of my PoV:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/007327.asp?rss=1
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA | 2006-01-18 13:11:44 | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-01-18 09:51:44 | Re: Bad estimate on LIKE matching |