Re: Surrogate primary key plus unique constraint vs. natural primary key: data integrity?
From: <robur.6_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <cd5955d9-0f61-4df5-a1ad-ae8ee61fdfd9_at_googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <cd5955d9-0f61-4df5-a1ad-ae8ee61fdfd9_at_googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:22:38 PM UTC+2, Jan Hidders wrote:
>
> Is it? I'm agnostic on the issue myself, and I would never use that exact argument. Rather I would claim that in general the approach tends to reduce their number, which is true.
>
Application programmers usually invoke this argument, they find it easier to deal with an integer key column. Also many ORMs and frameworks do not support composite keys. And actually I’ve seen many programmers that didn’t heard about composite keys, I’ve even been asked once by a PM why I did not added a primary key on a table. It took me a while to realize that by primary key he was meaning a surrogate. Received on Wed Mar 13 2013 - 11:37:00 CET