Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: The Case Against Compound/Natural Keys

Re: The Case Against Compound/Natural Keys

From: <>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:01:39 -0600
Message-ID: <>

I actually prefer natural keys to surrogates. Our developers tend to slap surrogate, sequence-generated, keys on tables that still allow duplicate natural data. I'm surprised that your developers want to code the joins based on sevaral columns, instead of a single column. Usually they're lazier than that. ;-)

To enforce uniqueness, we're all stuck with having space taken up by indexes, but that's OK with me. The important thing is the quality of the data.

You should consider partitioning these tables. That and all local indexes should help all round.

IMHO you're off base in arguing against normalization. It's a GOOD thing - a VERY GOOD thing, actually. Again, quality of the data and flexibility of the data model are the most important things.

They really should have FK constraints where called for. Plus indexes on the FK columns.

Jack C. Applewhite - Database Administrator Austin (Texas) Independent School District 512.414.9715 (wk) / 512.935.5929 (pager)

 Same-Day Stump Grinding! Senior Discounts!

"Don Seiler" <>
Sent by:
01/26/2007 10:50 PM
Please respond to

oracle-l <>

The Case Against Compound/Natural Keys

I've been on a crusade against my developers lately after having had enough of fields being added to already-insane primary keys.

Today I was given a script to add a field to make what is now a 15-field primary key, all natural data. The first 9 fields of the key also provide the foreign key into the parent table (although a foreign key constraint is, of course, not used), and it carries on down the line, growing worse and worse. They've all heard me calling for surrogate keys, but they say they need uniqueness among this set of fields. Then when they discover duplicates, they just add another field.

I even suggested having NO primary key, just a non-unique key on the first 4 or 5 fields. But again they say they need to guarantee uniqueness. These tables are bulk-loaded and can contain over 150 million records. There is no query that even comes close to utilizing these fields, it is purely a unique constraint. However, since a unique constraint also creates an index, I didn't see any advantage there.

I'm looking for the words to basically doom this practice once and for all. I've already told them about the degradation of normalization, the storage needed for these unused indexes, etc. They claim there's nothing they can do for now. Migrating to surrogate keys would be non-trivial and isn't a priority, it seems.

-- Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 09:01:39 CST

Original text of this message