|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister|
Re: An improved technique for database primary keysby herveus (Parson)
|on Nov 05, 2010 at 12:54 UTC||Need Help??|
Every relational database table should, of course, have a primary key. This should be a column whose only purpose in life is to uniquely identify the row, and this strictly for the databases own, internal purposes. It should be a column whose values are utterly devoid of business or other meaning.
I beg to differ. Every table should have a primary key. However, that key can (and often should) be comprised of multiple columns. What you describe here is the use of surrogate keys. Sometimes you have no real choice but to use a surrogate key, but they are frequently misapplied. Even if you do use a surrogate key, there should be a set of columns whose values identify the row. Those columns are the natural key. If any of those columns are permitted to be NULL, they can't be a primary key. The best you can do with them is make a UNIQUE index on them.
The risk with surrogate keys (especially if the natural key is ignored) is that you will get duplicate data. I've seen that in the wild. Use surrogate keys with care, if you must, but remember to identify the alternate key and enforce it.
Aside from that major quibble, I do like your idea.