X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F46D1B49F
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:51:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 86187-05
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:51:17 -0400 (AST)
Received: from amnet.co.cr (mail.amnet.co.cr [196.40.3.6])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2263DD1B519
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:51:16 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [10.15.8.41] (HELO racsa.co.cr)
	by amnet.co.cr (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b6)
	with SMTP id 17725933 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org;
	Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:47:27 -0600
Message-ID: <400235D5.1050501@racsa.co.cr>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:51:17 -0600
From: katarn <katarn@racsa.co.cr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Unique key field or serverl fks ?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200401/88
X-Sequence-Number: 16481

Hi,

I would like to know opinions about which approach is better:

Having a table with a field that works as a unique key, or having 
several fks that work as a combined key ( all the fks fields )?

Thanks in advance,

K.