Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys?
| От | Mike Christensen |
|---|---|
| Тема | Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | x2u7aa638e01005011925hf807ccbg1ae7838e943be5c1@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответы |
Re: Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary
keys?
Re: Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys? |
| Список | pgsql-general |
I have a table that stores a user ID and a subscription type, and this is really all it needs to store and any pair of values will always be unique. In fact, I think this pair should be the primary key on the table. However, I'm using Castle ActiveRecord which says at:
http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/documentation/v1rc1/usersguide/pks.html#CompositePK
And I quote:
http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/documentation/v1rc1/usersguide/pks.html#CompositePK
And I quote:
Quick Note: Composite keys are highly discouraged. Use only when you have no other alternative.
I get the feeling they're discouraged from a SQL point of view, but it doesn't actually say why anywhere. Is there any good reason to avoid using composite keys on a table? Why waste the space of an extra key if you don't have to? Thanks!
Mike
I get the feeling they're discouraged from a SQL point of view, but it doesn't actually say why anywhere. Is there any good reason to avoid using composite keys on a table? Why waste the space of an extra key if you don't have to? Thanks!
Mike
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: