Re: Surrogate Key vs Production Key

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:24:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1098159843.519191@yasure>

Joel Garry wrote:

> DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1098065308.838184_at_yasure>...
>

>>Noons wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41705a9c$0$24889$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do wish you wouldn't get so heated.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Funny.  I'm "heated", and "emotional" and all that.
>>>And yet, I'm not the one that uses the words "sloppy" and 
>>>"rubbish" or takes on a patronising attitude.  Ever.
>>
>>Perhaps. But you did use some language that, upon reviewing, my
>>support the notion that you were a bit agitated. That was most
>>certainly the conclusion I drew so I dropped the thread.

>
>
> My take is, when Noons appears agitated, there's probably something
> very interesting, worth looking at carefully. Usually something where
> the general IT usage is incorrect or sub-optimal.
>
> jg

Often. But in this case the issue of natural keys vs. surrogate keys is often more of a matter of religious fervor than anything else. I have seen many very heated discussions on the subject and many that turn quite unpleasant. Date and Cobb were rather plain speaking on the subject but many people make assumptions about what is, and is not, a natural key. In this case Noons and some others among which group I count myself ... more or less respectfully ... disagree.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 23:24:54 CDT