Message-ID: <40031373.5000305@racsa.co.cr>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:36:51 -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
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Unique key field or serverl fks ?
References: <400235D5.1050501@racsa.co.cr>
	<200401120952.53629.dev@archonet.com>
In-Reply-To: <200401120952.53629.dev@archonet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>>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 )?
>>    
>>
>
>Depends on the particular situation, you'll need to give details of the tables 
>and their place in your system.
>
>There are two reasons I've seen given for using an artificial (substitute) 
>primary key:
>1. It's "lighter" than several other fields (especially where they are text)
>2. The natural primary key has meaning to the users, and the users will tend 
>to get it wrong.
>
>The second is probably the more persuasive - the first can definitely have 
>costs as well as benefits.
>
>  
>
Ok, thanks for answering, example:

    Articles Table
        articleid
    Warehouses Table
        warehouseid
    Locations per warehouse Table
        warehouseid (fk)
        locationid
        description
    Articles Per warehouse
        warehouseid (fk)
        articleid (fk)
        locationid (fk)
        stock

In the Articles per warehouse the "primary key" is  the cominbation of 3 
fks. Is that kind of situation acceptable or it could be better to have 
a unique primary key field in addition to the fks? This "gets worse" if 
another table has information binded to the articles per warehouse, it 
has to reference the 3 fks in addition to its own key fields.

Thanks in advance,

K.