From: | Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |
Date: | 2010-05-02 02:25:41 |
Message-ID: | x2u7aa638e01005011925hf807ccbg1ae7838e943be5c1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
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!
Mike
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-02 02:32:12 | Re: Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-02 02:19:25 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server |