On: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:33:13 +0000, "Peter Childs" <peterachilds@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The worse thing I meet is people who think primary keys need to be
> integer single field unique serial fields
>
> I tend to agree that primary keys should be single fields if they
> need to be referenced but should also be natural if at all possible.
> ie use car number plates rather than some serial int.
Why is this desire not better satisfied by an index rather than a key?
Any key into a relation is, in the final analysis, an arbitrary value.
Why is a data value considered intrinsically superior to a sequence?
I am converting a system from HP TruboImage to PostgreSQL and the
framework selected, Ruby on Rails, essentially depends upon the existence
of an integer sequenced primary key for each row. Originally I had a deep
distaste for the artificiality of integer keys but now I really do not
consider them any more, or less, coercive than many other programming
conventions.
Regards,
--
*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
