Re: Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:24:33 -0400
Message-ID: <47a339b1$0$4058$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> an
>
>
> I'll go further than that. For most design problems there is more than one
> acceptable solution. This is particularly true of schema design. Design
> trade-offs will help determine which of two possible designs is better in
> any given situation.
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:24:33 -0400
Message-ID: <47a339b1$0$4058$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David Cressey wrote:
> "James A. Fortune" <MPAPoster_at_FortuneJames.com> wrote in message
> news:eU$f6QEZIHA.5984_at_TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>Sylvain Lafontaine wrote: >> >>>>I concede the point that for the two keys of the junction table, using
>
> an
>
>>>>autonumber primary key is overkill except for special situations. >>> >>> >>>Shouldn't a database be designed right from the beginning? >> >>I didn't say overkill doesn't work, did I :-)? I think that until we >>delineate the true trade-offs between natural keys and artificial keys, >>if any, you should design your schemas/schemata as you deem best. If it >>turns out that there are situations where each has advantages then those >>situations should determine the correctness of the schema.
>
> I'll go further than that. For most design problems there is more than one
> acceptable solution. This is particularly true of schema design. Design
> trade-offs will help determine which of two possible designs is better in
> any given situation.
The key words on that paragraph are: design and tradeoff. Received on Fri Feb 01 2008 - 16:24:33 CET