Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:32:59 GMT
Message-ID: <LNvvg.214546$IK3.69846_at_pd7tw1no>
>
> Sorry, I shouldn't have written "32-bit". Assume 64 bit, 128, or
> whatever suits you. But's that really not my point. I thought my
> question was more about whether when implementing a RDBS, there should
> be an immutable indentifer for every row in a table.
>
> Does "db theory" include implementation issues, or is there a more
> appropriate place to post questions?
>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:32:59 GMT
Message-ID: <LNvvg.214546$IK3.69846_at_pd7tw1no>
Paul Mansour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
>> If it can never be exposed, then it is hardly a key as far as the db >> interface is concerned and all you're asking is whether an optimization >> is possible using a 32-bit value to indirect some other values - if you >> don't think you'll run out of room, go ahead, what's it got to do with >> db theory?
>
> Sorry, I shouldn't have written "32-bit". Assume 64 bit, 128, or
> whatever suits you. But's that really not my point. I thought my
> question was more about whether when implementing a RDBS, there should
> be an immutable indentifer for every row in a table.
>
> Does "db theory" include implementation issues, or is there a more
> appropriate place to post questions?
>
I don't see that immutability matters to the various purposes of most db's if those identifiers aren't exposed. Also don't see that the term "Surrogate keys" applies.
I don't know of a serious implementation group, if you find one it would sure interest me.
p Received on Wed Jul 19 2006 - 21:32:59 CEST