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

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Normalization, Natural Keys, Surrogate Keys

Re: Normalization, Natural Keys, Surrogate Keys

From: Bernard Peek <bap_at_shrdlu.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:06:32 +0100
Message-ID: <tFi0JoKoDV98EwUU@shrdlu.com>


In message <c1ec9b8f.0205290820.706424bc_at_posting.google.com>, Kai Ponte <cybermusicdude_at_aol.com> writes

>> The right way to do it is to have an UNIQUE constraint, the
>> application will try to insert the data (without checking for
>> duplicates), and the database will fail the INSERT in case of invalid
>> data, then the application can catch the exception and follow the
>> business rules for dealing with these exceptions.
>>
>
>Okay, you've made me think. (I hate it when that happens.) I've
>discussed this issue with some of my co-workers and here's what I've
>come up with.
>
>1. Yes, having a unique column (or group of columns) in the table is
>beneficial. This is done even if the column(s) isn't (arent) the PK.
>
>2. Allowing the DBMS to catch the duplicates and failing on an insert
>is a benefit when programmers don't do their due dilligence. (That
>never happens, right?)
>
>HOWEVER...
>
>I thought about the exception table idea and I believe it is a bad
>design in most instances that I can forsee. (Remember this is just my
>narrow-minded opinion.) Here's why. Let's say, as in the examples
>we've been using, we have a table which includes a "supposedly" unique
>SSN. Let's say too that we want the DBMS to catch any duplicate SSNs
>and not allow for an INSERT. You suggest that an exception table be
>created where the duplicates reside. I can see how this would benefit
>the enforcement of a uniqe column.
>
>The problem that I see is in how to deal with the exceptions. In a
>real-world situation, the exceptions may never get handled and they
>will live in the "exeption" table forever. Thus you end up with
>"duplicate" data in two tables. As a result, problems will crop up
>with foreign key relationships since they will need to be related to
>both the primary and exeption tables.
>
>Now, let's say we setup a design with only one table as so:
>
>RowID(PK), SSN, Occurance
>
>We still use the surrogate key to maintain a separation of the
>business data from the primary key. The SSN column will allow
>duplicates. The new column added is the occurance column which is set
>to zero unless a duplicate SSN is entered. Our UNIQUE constraint is
>the combination of the SSN and occurance. Using my example with data
>we would see something like the following:
>
>RowID SSN Occurance
>1 123-45-6789 0
>2 123-43-8989 0
>3 123-45-6789 1
>
>The data still is allowed to be entered and it exists in only one
>table. The occurance flag is incremented each time a duplicate SSN is
>entered. Programming can be created to deal with the exceptions and
>provide for a clean up when time permits. (Read Steven Covey's parable
>on sharpening the saw to determine when this happens.) This design
>allows for the exeptions you mentioned without forcing the DBMS to
>maintain a second table.

That's close to what my solution would be. If I was really expecting the SSN to be unique I would probably call the extra column Error and set up a mechanism for investigating the circumstances that forced it to be used.

I would probably also drop the RowID column because it adds complexity without adding functionality. The compound key created from the SSN and Error columns is small enough that it wouldn't create any real performance problems.

-- 
Bernard Peek
bap_at_shrdlu.com

In search of cognoscenti
Received on Wed May 29 2002 - 17:06:32 CDT

Original text of this message

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