>
> So I'm from the camp that advocates the use of surrogate
> keys for every table reqardless if a candidate keys already
> exists.
>
> There are two tables that don't use them:
>
> TURBINE_ROLE_PERMISSION
> TURBINE_USER_GROUP_ROLE
>
> And another table, TURBINE_JOBENTRY, whose key, JOBID, should
> be made to be autoincrement.
>
> Does anyone object if we/I update the three tables? The big win
> for using surrogate keys is that you add/change/delete columns
> without affecting the relational intregrity.
>
> mike
>
Hi!
I am (as always) strongly against surrogate keys (and any other surrogate
stuff) for the fact that they are surrogate - they do not have any real
ground. I see no benefit in their existence and a lot of bad. the first of
them mentioned before and, for example, that this would allow for multiple
entries with same set of FKs which would be ambigous data. You then need to
put your own error checking instead of taking advantage of DB capabilities.
So, although I am not a commiter, so it does not formally count, I would
give my strong -1 here.
dixi
fedor.
_______________________________________________________
Tired of slow Internet? Get @Home Broadband Internet
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
