From: David Clarke <pigwin32@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Table design question
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:05:54 +1200
Message-ID: <12b7ac1e0606010405u6e062f71mf4adbaeb6c46df5f@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
I'm reading Joe Celko's book SQL Programming Style for the second time
and although I've been an OO developer for quite a few years I'm
fairly green wrt SQL. Joe is obviously something of a curmudgeon and I
would fall squarely into his newbie OO developer ordinal scale and I'm
trying to avoid the slide into stupid newbie OO developer.
So I'm designing a table and I'm looking for an appropriate key. The
natural key is a string from a few characters up to a maximum of
perhaps 100. Joe gets quite fierce about avoiding the use of a serial
id column as a key. The string is unique in the table and fits the
criteria for a key. So should I follow Joe's advice and use my natural
key as the primary key? It sounds reasonable but it will mean at least
one other table will have the string as a foreign key. My postgres
intro book has id columns all over the place but is it really that big
an issue these days to have a 100 character primary key? Are there
postgres-specific implications for either approach?
Thanks
Dave
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: pigwin32@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Table design question
In-Reply-To: <12b7ac1e0606010405u6e062f71mf4adbaeb6c46df5f@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox