Re: design question

From: Walter Mitty <wamitty_at_verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:17:34 GMT
Message-ID: <O1hQk.3214$225.1937_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net>


"Ed Prochak" <edprochak_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:98c0f37a-3594-4158-9e7a-c525b9e50df7_at_p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Oct 28, 3:06 am, robu..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> Walter Mitty wrote:
> > <robu..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message

> > Are you sure you don't mean "primary keys made up by composing several
> > foreign keys"? Just a guess on my part, since I don't really know what
> > you
> > mean.
>
> Sorry, I was in hurry so I was not very clear. I mean some people
> prefer to use surrogate (primary) keys instead of natural composite
> keys and then use foreign keys to surrogates just for making joins
> "faster". A bad idea in my opinion...

>I favor your view. There is a time and place for surrogates, but too
>many jump to using ID columns as the PK right away.

I also agree. I only use ID columns for "entity tables" not "relationship tables". And I only use them when there are no reliable natural keys available. Received on Wed Nov 05 2008 - 14:17:34 CET

Original text of this message