DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
	b=t+jY3Rdhr5XaOxTSKbN5qBP7Afh/eViHpjVrgQ0e/Ebv5Z1ojuRxG3tFYxBgsvhNcdu1X+UJhQ5yfHnuH52z1bpqZXWkHnrB8JjO6/zA8rWTT+UGRs79fJq+96ctnZVtcBb9J87EifX2yTw6Lm8DL4hpM/erYiIQTUfq2a55Smw=
Message-ID: <12b7ac1e0606010405u6e062f71mf4adbaeb6c46df5f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:05:54 +1200
From: "David Clarke" <pigwin32@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Table design question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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