On 6/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Chris Browne wrote:
> Celko is decidedly *NOT* promoting the notion that you should use a
> 100 byte long "natural key."
>
> Jamie's comments of "Orthodox versus Reform" seem reasonably
> appropriate in outlining someth
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Chris Browne wrote:
> Celko is decidedly *NOT* promoting the notion that you should use a
> 100 byte long "natural key."
>
> Jamie's comments of "Orthodox versus Reform" seem reasonably
> appropriate in outlining something of the difference between the
> positions.
Just to
"codeWarrior" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I never use anything other than "id SERIAL NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY" for my
> PKEY's -- as an absolute rule -- I guess I am a purist... Everything else
> (the other columns) can have unique constraints, etcetera and be FOREIGN
> KEYS, etc...
>
> Try INSER
I never use anything other than "id SERIAL NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY" for my
PKEY's -- as an absolute rule -- I guess I am a purist... Everything else
(the other columns) can have unique constraints, etcetera and be FOREIGN
KEYS, etc...
Try INSERTING your 100 character "natural" key into a table wi
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, David Clarke wrote:
> So I'm designing a table and I'm looking for an appropriate key. The
> natural key is a string from a few characters up to a maximum of
> perhaps 100. Joe gets quite fierce about avoiding the use of a serial
> id column as a key. The string is unique in t
"David Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> is it really that big an issue these days to have a 100 character primary
> key? Are there postgres-specific implications for either approach?
It's exactly the same size issue as ever. A 20% increase in space usage is a
20% performance hit in certain
> So I'm designing a table and I'm looking for an appropriate key. The
> natural key is a string from a few characters up to a maximum of
> perhaps 100. Joe gets quite fierce about avoiding the use of a serial
> id column as a key. The string is unique in the table and fits the
> criteria for a key
I'm reading Joe Celko's book SQL Programming Style for the second time
and although I've been an OO developer for quite a few years I'm
fairly green wrt SQL. Joe is obviously something of a curmudgeon and I
would fall squarely into his newbie OO developer ordinal scale and I'm
trying to avoid the
