Re: Sequence Numbers as Primary Keys
From: Neil Greene <ngreene_at_SHL.com>
Date: 1995/09/24
Message-ID: <DFF9Fw.3G9_at_shlnews.shl.com>#1/1
>Recently at work ,there has been a controversy between the application development
>group (IT) and the database administration group (DBA) concerning using sequence
>numbers as primary keys and hence as foreign keys in the appropriate table.
>
>The IT group claims that their C++ program will be much more efficient with fixed-length
>unique identifiers.
>
>The DBA group refuses to use sequence numbers claiming that they are not "business
>data" and do not belong in the database.
>
>The database has probably around 50 tables with an estimated 6 million hits a day;
>However it is only a few tables (7 or less) that will be getting the majority of the hits. The
>composite key in these tables is quite large, usually 5 or 6 columns to make the row
>unique.
>
>We are running Oracle 7 on a RS/6000 Unix box.
>
>Any insight to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Date: 1995/09/24
Message-ID: <DFF9Fw.3G9_at_shlnews.shl.com>#1/1
jhagans_at_telerama.lm.com (^^^^^^^) wrote:
>Recently at work ,there has been a controversy between the application development
>group (IT) and the database administration group (DBA) concerning using sequence
>numbers as primary keys and hence as foreign keys in the appropriate table.
>
>The IT group claims that their C++ program will be much more efficient with fixed-length
>unique identifiers.
>
>The DBA group refuses to use sequence numbers claiming that they are not "business
>data" and do not belong in the database.
>
>The database has probably around 50 tables with an estimated 6 million hits a day;
>However it is only a few tables (7 or less) that will be getting the majority of the hits. The
>composite key in these tables is quite large, usually 5 or 6 columns to make the row
>unique.
>
>We are running Oracle 7 on a RS/6000 Unix box.
>
>Any insight to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Sounds to me as if the C++ group is looking for a better and more efficent solution, which is what the business will want. Sounds as if the DBA group is just sitting back and crying to get their way. Make the DBA group come up with a sound reason as to why they don't want to make the change. (Which it sounds as if you stated above) and then make them look at the solution. And pick which is better.
-- Neil Greene Senior Oracle DBA / Unix System Administrator SHL Systemhouse, Inc. (PH) 714-562-4255 / (FAX) 714-562-5225 LA Outsourcing Center <HREF=mailto:ngreene_at_shl.com>Received on Sun Sep 24 1995 - 00:00:00 CEST