meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Toronto, Canada | |
| age | 27 | |
| visits | member for | 9 months |
| seen | Feb 20 at 16:10 | |
| stats | profile views | 2 |
...?
|
Sep 11 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Sep 11 |
accepted | Surrogate key / Primary key: Better to use an existing unique data field or create a key field? |
|
Sep 11 |
comment |
Surrogate key / Primary key: Better to use an existing unique data field or create a key field? Humm.. I am sorry if I wasn't able to explain myself properly. May be I should have gone with the unique item names example.. I am not targeting a particular field. I was just saying that if there is a unique field, should I go with it or it will still be advantageous to create new int or smaller varchar field in terms of retrieval performance........ But your point taken in terms of data change. Even item name can change. Rarely but can definitely change. |
|
Sep 11 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Sep 11 |
revised |
Surrogate key / Primary key: Better to use an existing unique data field or create a key field? added 36 characters in body |
|
Sep 11 |
comment |
Surrogate key / Primary key: Better to use an existing unique data field or create a key field? I understand that any fine-tune or design question can be answered in "it depends".. I am not going for any particular environment in terms of hardware or amount of data. But if I must select then I would like to hear the answer for a large database in both live environment with constant updates and warehousing environment with only reads. |
|
Sep 10 |
awarded | Student |
|
Sep 10 |
asked | Surrogate key / Primary key: Better to use an existing unique data field or create a key field? |
