Re: Unique key field or serverl fks ? - Mailing list pgsql-sql

From Richard Huxton
Subject Re: Unique key field or serverl fks ?
Date
Msg-id 200401120952.53629.dev@archonet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Unique key field or serverl fks ?  (katarn <katarn@racsa.co.cr>)
Responses Re: Unique key field or serverl fks ?
List pgsql-sql
On Monday 12 January 2004 05:51, katarn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know opinions about which approach is better:
>
> Having a table with a field that works as a unique key, or having
> several fks that work as a combined key ( all the fks fields )?

Depends on the particular situation, you'll need to give details of the tables 
and their place in your system.

There are two reasons I've seen given for using an artificial (substitute) 
primary key:
1. It's "lighter" than several other fields (especially where they are text)
2. The natural primary key has meaning to the users, and the users will tend 
to get it wrong.

The second is probably the more persuasive - the first can definitely have 
costs as well as benefits.

--  Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd


pgsql-sql by date:

Previous
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: Select into
Next
From: Robert Creager
Date:
Subject: Re: Problem with NOT IN portion of query.