X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA03FD1B262 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:17:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37088-07 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:17:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server226.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.226]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D97D1B25D for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:17:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [64.81.245.111] (HELO temoku.sf.agliodbs.com) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 5863324; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:18:13 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Achilleus Mantzios , Kenneth Gonsalves Subject: Re: surrogate key or not? Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:17:11 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: Michael Glaesemann , Karsten Hilbert , References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200407231017.11605.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/202 X-Sequence-Number: 18454 Achilleus, > In other words, with surrogate keys, you eliminate the chance > that your original design was flawed due to lack of important > initial knowledge. Well, you don't *eliminate* it, but you do decrease it. I'd say, yes, this is an important 4th reason: 4) Your spec may be incorrect and surrogate keys make it easier to make design changes in production. Once again, though, this is an *implementation* issue and not a *logic* issue, as I asserted ... -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco