Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <98c0f37a-3594-4158-9e7a-c525b9e50df7_at_p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 28, 3:06 am, robu..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
> > <robu..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5fa36101-9980-4ebd-90d3-1a5cbecc13f8_at_34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > >... I prefer to use composite foreign keys instead of
> > > surrogates, but that's another problem.
>
> > Composite foreign keys????
>
> > One uses composite foreign keys when the primary key being referenced is a
> > composite primary key. That is all.
>
> > Are you sure you don't mean "primary keys made up by composing several
> > foreign keys"? Just a guess on my part, since I don't really know what you
> > mean.
>
> Sorry, I was in hurry so I was not very clear. I mean some people
> prefer to use surrogate (primary) keys instead of natural composite
> keys and then use foreign keys to surrogates just for making joins
> "faster". A bad idea in my opinion...
I favor your view. There is a time and place for surrogates, but too many jump to using ID columns as the PK right away. Ed Received on Tue Nov 04 2008 - 22:47:14 CET