Re: Normalization, Natural Keys, Surrogate Keys
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:00:14 GMT
Message-ID: <MPG.175304109d8192bd98970f_at_news.easynews.com>
In article <un0uy7xqi.fsf_at_rcn.com>, galendboyer_at_yahoo.com says...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, 123tiseo.paul_at_123mayo.edu (drop the numbers) wrote:
>
> > This said, the only thing I see wrong with surrogate keys is
> > that they can cause you extra work. You must, in some cases, think
> > about the "properness" of both the surrogate and the natural,
> > alternate key.
>
> True. But "thinking" about the surrogate is brain-dead. Its the
> natural key that must be thought of and is always the hardest.
Yes, but what I meant is that it is an additional worry, if not a difficult one. :)
> > Furthermore, it requires additional rules on the physical
> > implementation which could hamper performance
>
> There will be one extra index to maintain on every table.
Agreed. Indices are the ones that will add to the performance consideration.
> > or which might not be doable depending on the engine used.
>
> Hm... Haven't thought of this one. Hm... What engines would have
> issues?
Don't know. Haven't used one where this would be an issue. It's a CYA... :) (Any opinions expressed are strictly mine only and not my employer's)
Paul Tiseo, Intermediate Systems Programmer Reply To: 123tiseo.paul_at_123mayo.edu (drop the numbers) Received on Mon May 20 2002 - 20:00:14 CEST