Re: Long column names...Performance issues?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:34:54 -0400
Message-ID: <49399e7f$0$5473$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Several years ago I was more categoric about these things, today I'd
> say that wahtever suits one better is OK, however I personally stick
> to surrogates for new apps anyway :)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:34:54 -0400
Message-ID: <49399e7f$0$5473$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Gints Plivna wrote:
> On 5 Dec., 21:07, Ed Prochak <edproc..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You had me until the suggestion that all tables should have surrogate >>ID primary Keys. Otherwise I think your suggestions look good.
>
> Several years ago I was more categoric about these things, today I'd
> say that wahtever suits one better is OK, however I personally stick
> to surrogates for new apps anyway :)
That's a non-answer if I ever heard one. The design criteria for primary keys are uniqueness, irreducibility, familiarity, stability and simplicity -- not necessarily in that order. The criteria frequently contradict one another requiring the designer to make tradeoffs.
Your attitude basically says you don't have a clue how to do real design so you use a simplistic rule instead. Evaluating designs and understanding design tradeoffs is central to what we do. Received on Fri Dec 05 2008 - 22:34:54 CET