Re: Any *real* reason to choose a natural, composite PK over a surrogate, simple PK? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From dananrg@yahoo.com
Subject Re: Any *real* reason to choose a natural, composite PK over a surrogate, simple PK?
Date
Msg-id 1149775225.795910.74710@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Any *real* reason to choose a natural, composite PK
List pgsql-general
If one decides to use a composite key, beyond how many attributes
should one seriously consider creating a surrogate key instead? 4? 5?
Less? I have seen a composite key composed of 5 attributes and thought
- why? What's the value over a surrogate key?

I guess choosing a candidate key (presuming the candidates are
legitimate candidates) is at least partially a matter of taste. What
taste would compel people to choose composite keys composed of more
than 2-3 attributes?


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: dananrg@yahoo.com
Date:
Subject: Fabian Pascal and RDBMS deficiencies in fully implementing the relational model
Next
From: tom.darci@gmail.com
Date:
Subject: Re: SessionID, pretty please