Thank you Thiago. -Luther
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > Em Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:35:52 -0300, Luther Baker <lutherba...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > This is a little offtopic - so I apologize in advance but I'm building >> Tapestry applications and have a Hibernate question that I'd like to pose >> here. >> Is there preferred type for simple Hibernate IDs? >> > > I always use an artificial (i.e. a column that is used only as id, not > being used to store real data) integer column generated by the DBMS as a > table primary key. I always use Integer, unless I expect the number of rows > to be huge. In that cases, I use Long. > > By the way, *never* use compound primary keys or any natural id column. > That's my advice. It's simple, it's fast, it prevents some very bad problems > when you need to change the database structure. > > Simply stated, I'm asking about the two orthogonal choices: (native vs >> object, range or size) >> Is an int preferred to an Integer? Is there a compelling argument for >> either native or Object? >> > > I guess that you mean "primite" when you mean "native". > Native types in Java can't have null values, so, for primary key > properties, a Integer is a much better fit than an int. > > Is an Integer preferred to a Long (if the extra range of the the Long is >> unecessary)? >> > > Yes. > > For instance, using hsqldb - would a Long possibly require TWO columns and >> an Integer only one? >> > > No. A Long would require a 64 bits column type in the DBMS. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Independent Java consultant, developer, and instructor > http://www.arsmachina.com.br/thiago > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
