From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |
Date: | 2010-05-02 02:32:12 |
Message-ID: | q2hdcc563d11005011932xb521a89bl12d43b5d4482312e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> wrote:
> I have a table that stores a user ID and a subscription type, and this is
> really all it needs to store and any pair of values will always be unique.
> In fact, I think this pair should be the primary key on the table. However,
> I'm using Castle ActiveRecord which says at:
>
> http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/documentation/v1rc1/usersguide/pks.html#CompositePK
>
> And I quote:
>
> Quick Note: Composite keys are highly discouraged. Use only when you have no
> other alternative.
>
> I get the feeling they're discouraged from a SQL point of view, but it
> doesn't actually say why anywhere. Is there any good reason to avoid using
> composite keys on a table? Why waste the space of an extra key if you don't
> have to? Thanks!
From reading that, they're discouraged from a hibernate point of view.
I've never had a problem with composite keys in SQL myself.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2010-05-02 02:35:46 | Re: Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |
Previous Message | Mike Christensen | 2010-05-02 02:25:41 | Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |