On 04/28/2011 11:44 AM, Andy Colson wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 12:29 PM, Jim Irrer wrote:
>> A colleague of mine insists that using surrogate keys is the
>> common practice by an overwhelming margin in relational databases and
>> that they are used in 99 percent of large installations. I agree that
>> situations benefit from them, but are they really as pervasive
>> as he claims?
>> - Jim
> I dont see how you could know unless you went to all the "large
> installations" and asked. But since its a good idea, and you "should" do
> it that way, and because I'm pessimistic, I'd say only 5% of RDB users
> do it that way.
> Oh! Joke: Why do DB Admins make better lovers? They use surrogates!
> Anyway, I'm not a large install, but I use em. That's gotta count for
> Really, how could you count? Was there a poll someplace? Ask for some
> data. Otherwise seems like BS to me.
Hm, I get the feeling that only the good folks at Hibernate seem to
think using a "natural key" is the _only_ way to go.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2011-04-28 18:20:38|
|Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic) keys|
|Previous:||From: Andy Colson||Date: 2011-04-28 17:44:02|
|Subject: Re: pervasiveness of surrogate (also called synthetic)