From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sally Sally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] primary key and existing unique fields Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:48:50 -0700
Sally Sally wrote:Hi all,
I am wandering about the pros and cons of creating a separate serial field for a primary key when I already have a single unique field. This existing unique field will have to be a character of fixed length (VARCHAR(12)) because although it's a numeric value there will be leading zeroes. There are a couple more tables with similar unique fields and one of them would need to reference the others. Does anybody see any good reason for adding a separate autoincrement primary key field for each table? or either way is not a big deal.
Your primary key should not be directly related to the data being stored. Outside of the fact that it is the primary reference or the row.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Sally
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
-- Command Prompt, Inc., home of PostgreSQL Replication, and plPHP. Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL << jd.vcf >>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
