Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.tools -> Re: Primary Key Question

Re: Primary Key Question

From: Greg Teets <gteets_at_rr.cinci.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:08:59 GMT
Message-ID: <39d53b79.738750126@news-server>

I don't use sequence numbers unless there is no other REASONABLE choice. A sequence number is absolutely meaningless (unless you want to know the sequence, of course). I think that most well-designed tables will have a natural primary key. I would prefer to put a little effort into determing the primary key and I would feel like I have a better understanding of the data in the table.

Do the other four tables really need sequence numbers as their primary keys?

I once worked with a guy who insisted on using sequence numbers even when there was a natural key staring him in the face. In the long run, it really didn't hurt anything but gave my boss and I something to chuckle about.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:06:39 -0700, Tim Ringwood <tringwood_at_e2gotech.com> wrote:

> I was told early on in the world of DBA stuff that a primary key should
>normally
>be a sequence number I generate. At times I have use two keys from other
>tables
>when the table in question is a join table. The person I am now working
>with
>doesn't think you need a sequence number if the table in question is an
>"end node".
>(I don't know the correct term, but a table in which isn't refrenced by
>any other
>table). Instead the primary key is made up off user inputed data in
>combination
>of sequence numbers from other tables (at times having 4 fields making
>up the
>primary key). How do people feel about this? Hot debate here!
>
>thanks for any feedback!
>
>tim
>tringwood_at_yahoo.com
>
  Received on Fri Sep 29 2000 - 20:08:59 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US