Re: Natural keys vs Aritficial Keys

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:23:18 -0300
Message-ID: <4a1571ba$0$23770$>

Michael Schuerig wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:

>>>>In all cases, the problem seems to be a lack of understanding.
>>>Here you appear to take a shortcut in the argument. Would you mind to
>>>Lack of understanding on whose part? Are you sure you're not
>>>mistaking a trade-off between ease of development, given the
>>>constraints of a specific platform, and adherence to data modeling
>>>principles as lack of understanding? I can be fully aware of doing
>>>something wrong, but do it nevertheless when it is the less wrong of
>>>two wrong alternatives.
>>Mindless, automatic use of a numeric id without regard to the logical
>>requirements is NEVER the lesser evil.
> Where do you get the "mindless"? Innuendo instead of argument, I gather.

Where is the mindfulness in "Rails requires all tables to contain a column called 'id'" ?

> If you're sure you are right, I'd like to know your reasoning why it is 
> always bad to use a tool that encourages numeric ids, notwithstanding 
> the advantages that tool might provide in other regards.

First, we are not talking about a tool that "encourages" numeric ids. We are talking about a tool that mindlessly requires them.

The appropriate tool for data management is a data management system. Among the principal functions of a data management system are the integrity function and the manipulation function. Compensating for the loss of the integrity function is a tall order that neither rails nor any ORM even begin to fill.

Your suggestion that these products have anything that even remotely begins to compensate for the loss of the integrity function merely tells us you are ignorant of that function in the first place and confirms the OP's suggestion regarding a lack of understanding. Received on Thu May 21 2009 - 17:23:18 CEST

Original text of this message