-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
But that requires that you haul an artificial construct around.
On 11/24/06 12:38, Ben wrote:
> It depends how it's going to be used. If you are going to reference this
> table in other tables a lot and/or rarely care about what the name
> actually is, then the two-column approach is going to be more efficient.
> Numbers are smaller and easier to compare than strings.
>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Tom Allison wrote:
>
>> I notice a lot of places where people use the approach of creating an
>> index and a unique key like:
>>
>> CREATE TABLE foo (
>> idx SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
>> name varchar(32) UNIQUE NOT NULL
>> )
>>
>> instead of
>> CREATE TABLE foo (
>> name varchar(32) PRIMARY KEY
>> )
>>
>> If the name is NEVER going to change, is there any advantage to doing
>> this?
>> If there are many-to-many reference tables (like name-to-friends) is
>> this any different?
>>
>> I've seen this a lot, but I've always assumed that with the condition
>> that 'name' would NEVER change, there was no advantage.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFZ0SIS9HxQb37XmcRAppYAJ9i5PpJ021FyQYQSgTo9Alv8CDNHgCg1Q4p
nMmJ64MHVNfE91EZIsJNwts=
=piIg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
