Re: Natural keys vs Aritficial Keys

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:59:22 -0300
Message-ID: <4a1193e2$0$23766$>

Roy Hann wrote:

> paul c wrote:

>>To most people, "natural" means "physical" 

> Really?! I can't possibly say you are wrong about that because I
> wouldn't know, but you do surprise me.
>>and ends up being quite 
>>unnatural for some purposes..  When inventory or anything else "moves", 
>>sometimes "logical" locations are more convenient, allowing the 
>>replacement of one row to indicate the transfer or re-assignment of many 

> That seems very implausible in the real world. That is a logical model
> in which if you move one thing, you must--infallibly--move all the
> other things that were there too. That is, it is a world in which it is
> impossible not to also move all the other things. Such situations do
> exist, I grant you, but they are the exception not the rule. But no
> one here (AFAIK) has ever said synthetic/surrogate keys are never
> useful.

And no synthetic key will solve the problem that someone was stupid enough to fill a warehouse with no internal subdivision and no way to identify where in the warehouse inventory was put. (In the example cited, the warehouse being a huge gravel field.) Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 18:59:22 CEST

Original text of this message