Re: Normalization, Natural Keys, Surrogate Keys
Date: 17 May 2002 22:49:14 -0500
Message-ID: <un0uy7xqi.fsf_at_rcn.com>
On Fri, 17 May 2002, 123tiseo.paul_at_123mayo.edu (drop the numbers) wrote:
> This said, the only thing I see wrong with surrogate keys is
True. But "thinking" about the surrogate is brain-dead. Its the
> that they can cause you extra work. You must, in some cases, think
> about the "properness" of both the surrogate and the natural,
> alternate key.
> You now have two columns instead of one, although the impact these
> days on modern DBMSes should be negligeable.
Performance should be increased on joins with tables each having one surrogate key over tables all having natural keys and most of these having multiple values.
> Furthermore, it requires additional rules on the physical
> implementation which could hamper performance
There will be one extra index to maintain on every table.
> (PK on the surrogate and unique index on the complex natural key
> rather than just a single PK on a single complex natural.)
>
> Plus, I don't understand how someone can go ballistic over
> creating surrogate keys and then turn around and use an SSN or an
> EmployeeID as a PK, for example. These are basically someone else's
> surrogate key, yet are commonly used as PKs.
Bingo!
-- Galen deForest Boyer Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground.Received on Sat May 18 2002 - 05:49:14 CEST