Re: Natural keys vs Aritficial Keys
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 23:59:01 -0700
Walter Mitty wrote:
> I'm confused about some recent trends in database design.
> When I learned databases, about a quarter of a century ago, the preferred
> practice was to use natural keys to refer to individual table rows, unless
> there's some real good reason to go with an artificial key. I've run into a
> few cases where I chose to use an artificial key, but most of the time I've
> used a natural key. [...]
Somebody mentioned in an answer on StackOverflow that (Ruby on) Rails
requires all tables to contain a column called 'id' (and, by
implication, that column should be an 'identity' column or
auto-generated value). (I've not verified that this is so.)
I've also seen numerous suggestions that modern web-ish environments
(Rails, etc) get confused by composite keys.
I've also seen numerous suggestions that modern web-ish environments (Rails, etc) get confused by composite keys.
In all cases, the problem seems to be a lack of understanding.
-- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2008.0229 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ publictimestamp.org/ptb/PTB-6210 tiger128 2009-05-21 06:00:05 967144408DF12A71FE74F813A530EC74Received on Thu May 21 2009 - 08:59:01 CEST