Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

From: Paul Mansour <paul_at_carlislegroup.com>
Date: 19 Jul 2006 10:21:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1153329664.958072.234840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>

paul c wrote:

> If it can never be exposed, then it is hardly a key as far as the db
> interface is concerned and all you're asking is whether an optimization
> is possible using a 32-bit value to indirect some other values - if you
> don't think you'll run out of room, go ahead, what's it got to do with
> db theory?

Sorry, I shouldn't have written "32-bit". Assume 64 bit, 128, or whatever suits you. But's that really not my point. I thought my question was more about whether when implementing a RDBS, there should be an immutable indentifer for every row in a table.

Does "db theory" include implementation issues, or is there a more appropriate place to post questions? Received on Wed Jul 19 2006 - 12:21:08 CDT