Related
Via this link, I know that a GUID is not good as a clustered index, but it can be uniquely created anywhere. It is required for some advanced SQL Server features like replication, etc.
Is it considered bad design if I want to have a GUID column as a typical Primary Key ? Also this assumes a separate int identity column for my clustering ID, and as an added bonus a "user friendly" id?
update
After viewing your feedback, I realise I didn't really word my question right. I understand that a Guid makes a good (even if its overkill) PK, but a bad clustering index (in general). My question more directly asked, is, is it bad to add a second "int identity" column to act as the clustering index?
I was thinking that the Guid would be the PK and use it to build all relationships/joins etc. Then I would instead of using a natural key for the Cluster Index, I would add an additional "ID" that not data-specific. What I'm wondering is that bad?
If you are going to create the identity field anyway, use that as the primary key. Think about querying this data. Ints are faster for joins and much easier to specify when writing queries.
Use the GUID if you must for replication, but don't use it as a primary key.
What are you intending to accomplish with the GUID? The int identity column will also be unique within that table. Do you actually need or expect to need the ability to replicate? If so, is using a GUID actually preferable in your architecture over handling identity columns through one of the identity range mangement options?
If you like the "pretty" ids generated using the Active Record pattern, then I think I'd try to use it instead of GUIDs. If you do need replication, then use one of the replication strategies appropriate for identity columns.
Consider using only GUID, but get your GUIDs using the NEWSEQUENTIALID method (which allocates sequential values and so doesn't have the same clustering performance problems as the NEWID method).
A problem with using a secondary INT key as an index is that, if it's an adequate index, why use a GUID at all? If a GUID is necessary, how can you use an INT index instead? I'm not sure whether you need a GUID, and if so then why: are you doing replication and/or merging between multiple databases? And if you do need a GUID then you haven't specified exactly how you intend to use the non-globally-unique INT index in that scenario.
Sounds like what you are saying is that I have not made a good case for using a Guid at all, and I agree I know its overkill, but my question I guess would be is it too much overkill?
I think it's convenient to use GUID instead of INT for the primary key, if you have a use case for doing so (e.g. multiple databases) and if you can tolerate the linear, O(1) loss of performance caused simply by using a bigger (16-byte) key (which results in there being fewer index instances per page of memory).
The bigger worry is the way in which using a (random) GUID could affect performance when it's used for clustering. To counter-act that:
Either, use something else (e.g. one of the record's natural keys) as the clustered index, even if you still use a GUID for the primary key
Or, let the clustered index be the same field as the GUID primary key, but use NewSequentialId() instead of NewId() to allocate the GUID values.
is it bad to insert an additional artifical "id" for clustering, since I'm not sure I'll have a good natural ID candidate for clustering?
I don't understand why you wouldn't prefer to instead use just the GUID with NewSequentialId(), which is I think is provided for exactly this reason.
Using a GUID is lazy -- i.e., the DBA can't be bothered to model his data properly. Also it offers very bad join performance -- typically (16-byte type with poor locality).
Is it a bad design, if I want to have a GUID column as my typical Primary Key, and a separate, int identity column for my clustering ID, and as an added bonus a "user friendly" id?
Yes it is very bad -- firstly you don't want more than one "artificial" candidate key for your table. Secondly, if you want a user friendly id to use as keys just use a fixed length type such as char[8] or binary(8) -- preferably binary as the sort won't use the locale; you could use 16-byte types however you will notice a deterioration in performance -- however not as bad as GUID's. You can use these fixed types to build your own user-friendly allocation scheme that preserves some locality but generates sensible and meaningful id's.
As an Example:
If you are writing some sort of a CRM system (lets say online insurance quotes) and you want an extremely user friendly type for example a insurance quote reference (QR) that looks like so "AD CAR MT 122299432".
In this case -- since the quote length huge -- I would create a separate LUT/Symboltable to resolve the quote reference to the actual identifier used. but I will divorce this LUT from the rest of the model, I will never use the quote reference anywhere else in the model, especially not in the table representing the QR's.
Create Table QRLut
{
bigint bigint_id;
char(32) QR;
}
Now if my model has one table that represents the QR and 20 other tables featuring the bigint QR as a foreign key -- the fact that a bigint is used will allow my DB to scale well -- the wider the join predicates the more contention is caused on the memory bus -- and the amount of contention on the memory bus determines how well your CPU's can be saturated (multiple CPU's).
You might think with this example that you could just place the user-friendly QR in the table that actually represents the quote, however keep in mind that SQL server gathers statistics on tables and indices, and you don't want to let the server make caching decisions based on the user-friendly QR -- since it is huge and wastefull.
I think it is bad design to do it that way but I don't know if it is bad otherwise. Remember, SQLServer automatically assigns the clustered index to the Primary key. You would have to remove it after making the GUID the primary key. Also, you usually want your identity column to be your primary key. So doing what you are saying would confuse anyone who reads your code that doesn't look closely. I would suggest you make the ID column your primary key, identity column, and put the clustered index on it. Then make your GUID column a unique key, making it a non-clustered index and not allowing nulls. That in affect will do what you want but will follow more of the standard.
Personally, I would go this way:
An internally known identity field for
your PK (one that isn't known to the
end-user because they will inevitably
want to control it somehow). A
user-friendly "ID" that is unique with
respect to some business rule
(enforced either in your app code or
as a constraint). A GUID in the
future if it's ever deemed necessary
(like if it's required for
replication).
Now with respect to the clustered index, which you may or may not be confused about, consider this guide from MS for SQL Server 2000.
You are right that GUIDs make good object identifiers, which are implemented in a database as primary keys. Additionally, you are right that primary keys do not need to be the clustered indices.
GUIDs share the same characteristics for clustered indexes as INT IDENTITY columns, provided that the GUIDs are sequential. There is a NewSequentialID specific to SQL Server, but there is also a generic algorithm for creating them called COMB GUID, based on combining the current datetime with random bytes in a way that retains a large degree of randomness while retaining sequentiality.
One thing to keep in mind, if you intend to use NHibernate at some point, is that NHibernate natively knows how to use the COMB GUID strategy - and NHibernate can even use it to do batch-inserts, something that cannot be done with INT IDENTITY or NewSequentialID. If you are inserting multiple objects with NHibernate, then it will be faster to use the COMB GUID strategy than either of the other two methods.
It is not bad design at all, an int Identity for your clustering key gives you a number of good benefits (Narrow,Unique,Ascending) whilst keeping the GUID for functionality purposes very separate and acting as your primary key.
If anything I would suggest you have the right approach, although the "user friendly" ID is the most questionable part - as in what purpose is it there to serve.
Addendum : I should put in the obligatory link to (possibly?) the most read article about the topic by Kimberley Tripp. http://www.sqlskills.com/BLOGS/KIMBERLY/post/GUIDs-as-PRIMARY-KEYs-andor-the-clustering-key.aspx
I have read a lot of articles about whether we should have primary keys that are identity columns, but I'm still confused.
There are advantages of making columns are identity as it would give better performance in joins and provides data consistency. But there is a major drawback associated with identity ,i.e.When INSERT statement fails, still the IDENTITY value increases If a transaction is rolled back, the new IDENTITY column value isn't rolled back, so we end up with gaps in sequencing. I can use GUIDs (by using NEWSEQUENTIALID) but it reduces performance.
Gaps should not matter: the identity column is internal and not for end user usage or recognition.
GUIDs will kill performance, even sequential ones, because of the 16 byte width.
An identity column should be chosen to respect the physical implementation after modelling your data and working out what your natural keys are. That is, the chosen natural key is the logical key but you choose a surrogate key (identity) because you know how the engine works.
Or you use an ORM and let the client tail wag the database dog...
For all practical purposes, integers are ideal for primary keys and auto increment is a perfect way to generate them. As long as your PK is meaningless (surrogate) it will be protected from creativity of you customers and serve its main purpose (to identify a row in a table) just fine. Indexes are packed, joins fast as it gets, and it is easy to partition tables.
If you happen to need GUID, that's fine too; however, think auto-increment integer first.
I would like to say that depends on your needs. We use only Guids as primary keys (with default set to NewID) because we develop a distributed system with many Sql Server instances, so we have to be sure that every Sql Server generate unique primary key values.
But when using a Guid column as PK, be sure not to use it as your clustered index (thanks to marc_s for the link)
Advantage of the Guid type:
You can create unique values on different locations without synchronization
Disadvantage:
Its a large datatype (16 Bytes) and needs significant more space
It creates index fragmentation (at least when using the newid() function)
Dataconsistency is not an issue with primary keys independent of the datatype because a primary key has to be unique by definition!
I don't believe that an identity column has better join performance. At all, performance is a matter of the right indexes. A primary key is a constraint not an index.
Is your need to have a primary key of typ int with no gaps? This should'nt be a problem normally.
"yes, it KILLS performance - totally. I went from a legacy system with GUID as PK/CK and 99.5% index fragmentation on a daily basis to using INT IDENTITY - HUGE difference. Hardly any index fragmentation anymore, performance is significantly better. GUIDs as Clustering Index on your SQL Server table are BAD BAD BAD - period."
Might be true, but I see no logical reasoning according to which this leads me to conclude that GUIDs PER SE are also BAD BAD BAD.
Maybe you should consider using other types of indexes on such data. And if your dbms does not offer you a choice between several types of index, then perhaps you should consider getting yourself a better dbms.
It's been habitual in most of the scenarios while developing a database design we set primary key as integer type for a unique identifier in the Table. Why not use string or float for primary keys? Does this affect the accessibility of values, or in plain words retrieval speed? Are there any specific reasons?
An integer will use less disk space than a string, thus giving you a smaller index file to search through. This is important for large tables where you want to have as much of the index as possible cached in RAM.
Also, they can be autoincremented so you don't need to write your own routines to generate keys.
You often want to have a technical key (also called a surrogate key), a key that is only used to identify the row and not used for anything else. Most data may change sooner or later for reasons you can't control and you don't want to update it everywhere. Even such seemingly static data as a nation-assigned personal id number can change (if you get a new identity) or there may be laws prohibiting their use. A key generated by you, however, is in your own control. For such surrogate keys it's useful to have a small key that is easily generated.
As for "floats as primary keys": Don't do this. A primary key should uniquely identify a row. Floats have no equality relation, which means you cannot safely compare two float values for equality. This is an inherent shortcoming of floating-point values. If you need decimals, use a fixed-point number type instead.
The primary key is supposed to be an index that can provide a unique way to access a specific row in a table. Primary keys can be most data types (in practical applications, float/double won't work too well), and primary keys can also be compound keys (comprised of several columns.)
If you carefully examine the data in the table, you might be able to find a data item that will be unique for every row in the table, thereby eliminating the requirement that you fabricate a key like the autoincrement integer that you find in some schemas.
If you're in a manufacturing environment it might be an alphanumeric field like part number or assembly identifier. Retail or warehousing applications might have a stock number or combination of stock number/shipment/manufacturer.
Generally, If some data in your table is supposed to be a unique identifier it probably will serve well as a primary key for your table.
Using data that exists in the table already completely eliminates the requirement to "make up" a value (such as the autoincrement column) and use it as the primary key. This saves space since it's one less column in the table and one less index on the table.
Yes, in my experience integer keys are almost always faster, since it's more efficient for the database engine to compare integers than comparing strings. Depending on the "uniqueness" of the data (technically called cardinality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_(SQL_statements)), the effect of character vs. integer keys is nominal.
Character keys may degrade performance depending on the number of characters that the database needs to compare to determine whether keys are equal or not equal. In the pathological case, imagine a hundred-character field which differ only on the right hand side. One row has 100 A's. We need to compare this to a key with 99 A's and a B as the last character. Conceptually, databases compare character fields just like strcmp() (strncmp() if you prefer) from left to right.
good luck!
The only reason is for performance.
A logical database design should specify which "real" columns are unique, but when the logical design is transformed into a physical design, it is traditional to not use any of these "natural" keys as the primary key; instead, a meaningless integer column is added for this purpose - called a "surrogate key".
Normally the designer will add further unique constraints for the "real" uniqueness business rules as specified in the logical design.
This is because most DBMS's have trouble updating a primary key (e.g. due to performance issues when cascading the update to child tables). Some DBMS's might not be able to support non-integer primary keys at all.
Some side notes:
There's no theoretical reason why
primary keys should be immutable.
This is nothing to do with
normalization, which happens in the
logical model (which should never
have surrogate keys).
Also, note that the idea of a
"primary" key is not a relational
concept - it is simply a way of
denoting the "preferred" uniqueness
constraint, perhaps for relational
integrity - but there's nothing in
the RM that says that you must use
the same key for each child table.
I've created natural keys as "Primary
Keys" in Oracle databases before,
albeit rarely. I've even had them
used for foreign key constraints.
Admittedly, they were either
immutable, or I hand-wrote the
update-cascade code; and I had
trouble with one front-end
application where the PK included a
date column.
Bottom line: there is no theoretical requirement for surrogate keys, but they're much more practical than the alternative.
I suspect that it is because we can auto-increment integer values so it's easy to generate a new unique key for every insert.
Many common ORM (Object Relational Mapping) tools either force to use or at least recommend using integer as primary key.
Integer primary key also saves space compared to string and integer primary key is in some cases also faster. Sequences or auto increment fields make integer primary key generation easy at least if you do not work with distributed databases.
These are some of the main reasons why i think we have integers/ numbers as primary keys.
1.Primary keys should be able to uniquely define your row and should be immutable. One of the problems with using real attributes (name etc..) is that they could change over time. To maintain relational integrity in such a case would be very difficult as this change needs to cascade to all the child records.
2.The size of the table and thereby the index would be smaller in case we use a number as a key for the tab.e
3.Since these are automatically generated using a sequence, we can be sure that the values would be unique under all circumstances.
Check this.
http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=3916511�
I know this is subjective, but I'd like to know peoples opinions and hopefully some best practices that I can apply when designing sql server table structures.
I personally feel that keying a table on a fixed (max) length varchar is a no-no, because it means having to also propogate the same fixed length across any other tables that use this as a foreign key. Using an int, would avoid having to apply the same length across the board, which is bound to lead to human error, i.e. 1 table has varchar (10), and the other varchar (20).
This sounds like a nightmare to initially setup, plus means future maintaining of the tables is cumbersome too. For example, say the keyed varchar column suddenly becomes 12 chars instead of 10. You now have to go and update all the other tables, which could be a huge task years down the line.
Am I wrong? Have I missed something here? I'd like to know what others think of this and if sticking with int for primary keys is the best way to avoid maintainace nightmares.
When choosing the primary key usualy you also choose the clustered key. Them two are often confused, but you have to understand the difference.
Primary keys are logical business elements. The primary key is used by your application to identify an entity, and the discussion about primary keys is largely wether to use natural keys or surrogate key. The links go into much more detail, but the basic idea is that natural keys are derived from an existing entity property like ssn or phone number, while surrogate keys have no meaning whatsoever with regard to the business entity, like id or rowid and they are usually of type IDENTITY or some sort of uuid. My personal opinion is that surrogate keys are superior to natural keys, and the choice should be always identity values for local only applicaitons, guids for any sort of distributed data. A primary key never changes during the lifetime of the entity.
Clustered keys are the key that defines the physical storage of rows in the table. Most times they overlap with the primary key (the logical entity identifier), but that is not actually enforced nor required. When the two are different it means there is a non-clustered unique index on the table that implements the primary key. Clustered key values can actualy change during the lifetime of the row, resulting in the row being physically moved in the table to a new location. If you have to separate the primary key from the clustered key (and sometimes you do), choosing a good clustered key is significantly harder than choosing a primary key. There are two primary factors that drive your clustered key design:
The prevalent data access pattern.
The storage considerations.
Data Access Pattern. By this I understand the way the table is queried and updated. Remember that clustered keys determine the actual order of the rows in the table. For certain access patterns, some layouts make all the difference in the world in regard to query speed or to update concurency:
current vs. archive data. In many applications the data belonging to the current month is frequently accessed, while the one in the past is seldom accessed. In such cases the table design uses table partitioning by transaction date, often times using a sliding window algorithm. The current month partition is kept on filegroup located a hot fast disk, the archived old data is moved to filegroups hosted on cheaper but slower storage. Obviously in this case the clustered key (date) is not the primary key (transaction id). The separation of the two is driven by the scale requirements, as the query optimizer will be able to detect that the queries are only interested in the current partition and not even look at the historic ones.
FIFO queue style processing. In this case the table has two hot spots: the tail where inserts occur (enqueue), and the head where deletes occur (dequeue). The clustered key has to take this into account and organize the table as to physically separate the tail and head location on disk, in order to allow for concurency between enqueue and dequeue, eg. by using an enqueue order key. In pure queues this clustered key is the only key, since there is no primary key on the table (it contains messages, not entities). But most times the queue is not pure, it also acts as the storage for the entities, and the line between the queue and the table is blured. In this case there is also a primary key, which cannot be the clustered key: entities may be re-enqueued, thus changing the enqueue order clustered key value, but they cannot change the primary key value. Failure to see the separation is the primary reason why user table backed queues are so notoriously hard to get right and riddled with deadlocks: because the enqueue and dequeue occur interleaved trought the table, instead of localized at the tail and the head of the queue.
Correlated processing. When the application is well designed it will partition processing of correlated items between its worker threads. For instance a processor is designed to have 8 worker thread (say to match the 8 CPUs on the server) so the processors partition the data amongst themselves, eg. worker 1 picks up only accounts named A to E, worker 2 F to J etc. In such cases the table should be actually clustered by the account name (or by a composite key that has the leftmost position the first letter of account name), so that workers localize their queries and updates in the table. Such a table would have 8 distinct hot spots, around the area each worker concentrates at the moment, but the important thing is that they don't overlap (no blocking). This kind of design is prevalent on high throughput OLTP designs and in TPCC benchmark loads, where this kind of partitioning also reflects in the memory location of the pages loaded in the buffer pool (NUMA locality), but I digress.
Storage Considerations. The clustered key width has huge repercursions in the storage of the table. For one the key occupies space in every non-leaf page of the b-tree, so a large key will occupy more space. Second, and often more important, is that the clustered key is used as the lookup key by every non-clustred key, so every non-clustered key will have to store the full width of the clustered key for each row. This is what makes large clustered keys like varchar(256) and guids poor choices for clustered index keys.
Also the choice of the key has impact on the clustered index fragmentation, sometimes drastically affecting performance.
These two forces can sometimes be antagonistic, the data access pattern requiring a certain large clustered key which will cause storage problems. In such cases of course a balance is needed, but there is no magic formula. You measure and you test to get to the sweet spot.
So what do we make from all this? Always start with considering clustered key that is also the primary key of the form entity_id IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL. Separate the two and organize the table accordingly (eg. partition by date) when appropiate.
I would definitely recommend using an INT NOT NULL IDENTITY(1,1) field in each table as the
primary key.
With an IDENTITY field, you can let the database handle all the details of making sure it's really unique and all, and the INT datatype is just 4 bytes, and fixed, so it's easier and more suited to be used for the primary (and clustering) key in your table.
And you're right - INT is an INT is an INT - it will not change its size of anything, so you won't have to ever go recreate and/or update your foreign key relations.
Using a VARCHAR(10) or (20) just uses up too much space - 10 or 20 bytes instead of 4, and what a lot of folks don't know - the clustering key value will be repeated on every single index entry on every single non-clustered index on the table, so potentially, you're wasting a lot of space (not just on disk - that's cheap - but also in SQL Server's main memory). Also, since it's variable (might be 4, might be 20 chars) it's harder to SQL server to properly maintain a good index structure.
Marc
I'd agree that in general an INT (or identity) field type is the best choice in most "normal" database designs:
it requires no "algorithm" to generate the id/key/value
you have fast(er) joins and the optimizer can work a lot harder over ranges and such under the hood
you're following a defacto standard
That said, you also need to know your data. If you're going to blow through a signed 32-bit int, you need to think about unsigned. If you're going to blow through that, maybe 64-bit ints are what you want. Or maybe you need a UUID/hash to make syncing between database instances/shards easier.
Unfortunately, it depends and YMMV but I'd definitely use an int/identity unless you have a good reason not to.
Like you said, consistency is key. I personally use unsigned ints. You're not going to run out of them unless you are working with ludicrous amounts of data, and you can always know any key column needs to be that type and you never have to go looking for the right value for individual columns.
Based on going through this exercise countless times and then supporting the system with the results, there are some caveats to the blanket statement that INT is always better. In general, unless there is a reason, I would go along with that. However, in the trenches, here are some pros and cons.
INT
Use unless good reason not to do so.
GUID
Uniqueness - One example is the case where there is one way communication between remote pieces of the program and the side that needs to initiate is not the side with the database. In that case, setting a Guid on the remote side is safe where selecting an INT is not.
Uniqueness Again - A more far fetched scenario is a system where multiple customers are coexisting in separate databases and there is migration between customers like similar users using a suite of programs. If that user signs up for another program, their user record can be used there without conflict. Another scenario is if customers acquire entities from each other. If both are on the same system, they will often expect that migration to be easier. Essentially, any frequent migration between customers.
Hard to Use - Even an experienced programmer cannot remember a guid. When troubleshooting, it is often frustrating to have to copy and paste identifiers for queries, especially if the support is being done with a remote access tool. It is much easier to constantly refer to SELECT * FROM Xxx WHERE ID = 7 than SELECT * FROM Xxx WHERE ID = 'DF63F4BD-7DC1-4DEB-959B-4D19012A6306'
Indexing - using a clustered index for a guid field requires constant rearrangement of the data pages and is not as efficient to index as INTs or even short strings. It can kill performance - don't do it.
CHAR
Readability - Although conventional wisdom is that nobody should be in the database, the reality of systems is that people will have access - hopefully personnel from your organization. When those people are not savvy with join syntax, a normalized table with ints or guids is not clear without many other queries. The same normalized table with SOME string keys can be much more usable for troubleshooting. I tend to use this for the type of table where I supply the records at installation time so they do not vary. Things like StatusID on a major table is much more usable for support when the key is 'Closed' or 'Pending' than a digit. Using traditional keys in these areas can turn an easily resolved issue to something that requires developer assistance. Bottlenecks like that are bad even when caused by letting questionable personnel access to the database.
Constrain - Even if you use strings, keep them fixed length, which speeds indexing and add a constraint or foreign key to keep garbage out. Sometimes using this string can allow you to remove the lookup table and maintain the selection as a simple Enum in the code - it is still important to constrain the data going into this field.
For best performance, 99.999% of the time the primary key should be a single integer field.
Unless you require the primary key to be unique across multiple tables in a database or across multiple databases. I am assuming that you are asking about MS SQL-Server because that is how your question was tagged. In which case, consider using the GUID field instead. Though better than a varchar, the GUID field performance is not as good as an integer.
Use INT. Your points are all valid; I would prioritize as:
Ease of using SQL auto increment capabiity - why reinvent the wheel?
Managability - you don't want to have to change the key field.
Performance
Disk Space
1 & 2 require the developer's time/energy/effort. 3 & 4 you can throw hardware at.
If Joe Celko was on here, he would have some harsh words... ;-)
I want to point out that INTs as a hard and fast rule aren't always appropriate. Say you have a vehicle table with all types of cars trucks, etc. Now say you had a VehicleType table. If you wanted to get all trucks you might do this (with an INT identity seed):
SELECT V.Make, V.Model
FROM Vehicle as V
INNER JOIN VehicleType as VT
ON V.VehicleTypeID = VT.VehicleTypeID
WHERE VT.VehicleTypeName = 'Truck'
Now, with a Varchar PK on VehicleType:
SELECT Make, Model
FROM Vehicle
WHERE VehicleTypeName = 'Truck'
The code is a little cleaner and you avoid a join. Perhaps the join isn't the end of the world, but if you only have one tool in your toolbox, you're missing some opportunities for performance gains and cleaner schemas.
Just a thought. :-)
While INT is generally recommended, it really depends on your situation.
If you're concerned with maintainability, then other types are just as feasible. For example, you could use a Guid very effectively as a primary key. There's reasons for not doing this, but consistency is not one of them.
But yes, unless you have a good reason not to, an int is the simplest to use, and the least likely to cause you any problems.
With PostgreSQL I generally use the "Serial" or "BigSerial" 'data type' for generating primary keys. The values are auto incremented and I always find integers to be easy to work with. They are essentially equivalent to a MySQL integer field that is set to "auto_increment".
One should think hard about whether 32-bit range is enough for what you're doing. Twitter's status IDs were 32-bit INTs and they had trouble when they ran out.
Whether to use a BIGINT or a UUID/GUID in that situation is debatable and I'm not a hardcore database guy, but UUIDs can be stored in a fixed-length VARCHAR without worrying that you'll need to change the field size.
We have to keep in mind that the primary key of a table should not have "business logic" and it should be only an identity of the record it belongs. Following this simple rule an int and especially an identity int is a very good solution. By asking about varchar I guess that you mean using for example the "Full Name" as a key to the "people" table. But what if we want to change the name from "George Something" to "George A. Something" ? And what size will the field be ? If we change the size we have to change the size on all foreign tables too. So we should avoid logic on keys. Sometimes we can use the social ID (integer value) as key but I avoid that too. Now if a project has the prospects to scale up you should consider using Guids too (uniqueidentifier SQL type).
Keeping in mind that this is quite old a question, I still want to make the case for using varchar with surrogate keys fur future readers:
An environment with several replicated machines
Scenarios where it is required that the ID of a to be inserted row is known before it is actually inserted (i.e., the client assigns this ID, not the database)
When I am creating a new database table, what factors should I take into account for selecting the primary key's data type?
Sorry to do that, but I found that the answers I gave to related questions (you can check this and this) could apply to this one. I reshaped them a little bit...
You will find many posts dealing with this issue, and each choice you'll make has its pros and cons. Arguments for these usually refer to relational database theory and database performance.
On this subject, my point is very simple: surrogate primary keys ALWAYS work, while Natural keys MIGHT NOT ALWAYS work one of these days, and this for multiple reasons: field too short, rules change, etc.
To this point, you've guessed here that I am basically a member of the uniqueIdentifier/surrogate primary key team, and even if I appreciate and understand arguments such as the ones presented here, I am still looking for the case where "natural" key is better than surrogate ...
In addition to this, one of the most important but always forgotten arguments in favor of this basic rule is related to code normalization and productivity:
each time I create a table, shall I lose time
identifying its primary key and its physical characteristics (type, size)
remembering these characteristics each time I want to refer to it in my code?
explaining my PK choice to other developers in the team?
My answer is no to all of these questions:
I have no time to lose trying to identify "the best Natural Primary Key" when the surrogate option gives me a bullet-proof solution.
I do not want to remember that the Primary Key of my Table_whatever is a 10 characters long string when I write the code.
I don't want to lose my time negotiating the Natural Key length: "well if You need 10 why don't you take 12 to be on the safe side?". This "on the safe side" argument really annoys me: If you want to stay on the safe side, it means that you are really not far from the unsafe side! Choose surrogate: it's bullet-proof!
So I've been working for the last five years with a very basic rule: each table (let's call it 'myTable') has its first field called 'id_MyTable' which is of uniqueIdentifier type. Even if this table supports a "many-to-many" relation, where a field combination offers a very acceptable Primary Key, I prefer to create this 'id_myManyToManyTable' field being a uniqueIdentifier, just to stick to the rule, and because, finally, it does not hurt.
The major advantage is that you don't have to care anymore about the use of Primary Key and/or Foreign Key within your code. Once you have the table name, you know the PK name and type. Once you know which links are implemented in your data model, you'll know the name of available foreign keys in the table.
And if you still want to have your "Natural Key" somewhere in your table, I advise you to build it following a standard model such as
Tbl_whatever
id_whatever, unique identifier, primary key
code_whatever, whateverTypeYouWant(whateverLengthYouEstimateTheRightOne), indexed
.....
Where id_ is the prefix for primary key, and code_ is used for "natural" indexed field. Some would argue that the code_ field should be set as unique. This is true, and it can be easily managed either through DDL or external code. Note that many "natural" keys are calculated (invoice numbers), so they are already generated through code
I am not sure that my rule is the best one. But it is a very efficient one! If everyone was applying it, we would for example avoid time lost answering to this kind of question!
If using a numeric key, make sure the datatype is giong to be large enough to hold the number of rows you might expect the table to grow to.
If using a guid, does the extra space needed to store the guid need to be considered? Will coding against guid PKs be a pain for developers or users of the application.
If using composite keys, are you sure that the combined columns will always be unique?
I don't really like what they teach in school, that is using a 'natural key' (for example ISBN on a bookdatabase) or even having a primary key made up off 2 or more fields. I would never do that. So here's my little advice:
Always have one dedicated column in every table for your primary key.
They all should have the same colomn name across all tables, i.e. "ID" or "GUID"
Use GUIDs when you can (if you don't need performance), otherwise incrementing INTs
EDIT:
Okay, I think I need to explain my choices a little bit.
Having a dedicated column namend the same across all table for you primary key, just makes your SQL-Statements a lot of easier to construct and easier for someone else (who might not be familiar with your database layout) easier to understand. Especially when you're doing lots of JOINS and things like that. You won't need to look up what's the primary key for a specific table, you already know, because it's the same everywhere.
GUIDs vs. INTs doesn't really matters that much most of the time. Unless you hit the performance cap of GUIDs or doing database merges, you won't have major issues with one or another. BUT there's a reason I prefer GUIDs. The global uniqueness of GUIDs might always come in handy some day. Maybe you don't see a need for it now, but things like, synchronizing parts of the database to a laptop / cell phone or even finding datarecords without needing to know which table they're in, are great examples of the advantages GUIDs can provide. An Integer only identifies a record within the context of one table, whereas a GUID identifies a record everywhere.
In most cases I use an identity int primary key, unless the scenario requires a lot of replication, in which case I may opt for a GUID.
I (almost) never used meaningful keys.
Unless you have an ultra-convenient natural key available, always use a synthetic (a.k.a. surrogate) key of a numeric type. Even if you do have a natural key available, you might want to consider using a synthetic key anyway and placing an additional unique index on your natural key. Consider what happened to higher-ed databases that used social security numbers as PKs when federal law changed, the costs of changing over to synthetic keys were enormous.
Also, I have to disagree with the practice of naming every primary key the same, e.g. "id". This makes queries harder to understand, not easier. Primary keys should be named after the table. For example employee.employee_id, affiliate.affiliate_id, user.user_id, and so on.
Do not use a floating point numeric type, since floating point numbers cannot be properly compared for equality.
Where do you generate it? Incrementing number's don't fit well for keys generated by the client.
Do you want a data-dependent or independent key (sometimes you could use an ID from business data, can't say if this is always useful or not)?
How well can this type be indexed by your DB?
I have used uniqueidentifiers (GUIDs) or incrementing integers so far.
Cheers
Matthias
Numbers that have meaning in the real world are usually a bad idea, because every so often the real world changes the rules about how those numbers are used, in particular to allow duplicates, and then you've got a real mess on your hands.
I'm partial to using an generated integer key. If you expect the database to grow very large, you can go with bigint.
Some people like to use guids. The pro there is that you can merge multiple instances of the database without altering any keys but the con is that performance can be affected.
For a "natural" key, whatever datatype suits the column(s). Artifical (surrogate) keys are usually integers.
It all depends.
a) Are you fine having unique sequential numeric numbers as your primary key? If yes, then selecting UniqueIdentifier as your primary key will suffice.
b) If your business demand is such that you need to have alpha numeric primary key, then you got to go for varchar or nvarchar.
These are the two options I could think of.
A great factor is how much data you're going to store. I work for a web analytics company, and we have LOADS of data. So a GUID primary key on our pageviews table would kill us, due to the size.
A rule of thumb: For high performance, you should be able to store your entire index in memory. Guids could easily break this!
Use natural keys when they can be trusted. Some sources of natural keys can't be trusted. Years ago, the Social Security Administration used to occasionally mess up an assign the same SSN to two different people. Theyv'e probably fixed that by now.
You can probably trust VINs for vehicles, and ISBNs for books (but not for pamphlets, which may not have an ISBN).
If you use natural keys, the natural key will determine the datatype.
If you can't trust any natural keys, create a synthetic key. I prefer integers for this purpose. Leave enough room for reasonable expansion.
I usually go with a GUID column primary key for all tables (rowguid in mssql). What could be natural keys I make unique constraints. A typical example would be a produkt identification number that the user have to make up and ensure that is unique. If I need a sequence, like in a invoice i build a table to keep a lastnumber and a stored procedure to ensure serialized access. Or a Sequence in Oracle :-) I hate the "social security number" sample for natural keys as that number will never be alway awailable in a registration process. Resulting in a need for a scheme to generate dummy numbers.
I usually always use an integer, but here's an interesting perspective.
https://blog.codinghorror.com/primary-keys-ids-versus-guids/
Whenever possible, try to use a primary key that is a natural key. For instance, if I had a table where I logged one record every day, the logdate would be a good primary key. Otherwise, if there is no natural key, just use int. If you think you will use more than 2 billion rows, use a bigint. Some people like to use GUIDs, which works well, as they are unique, and you will never run out of space. However, they are needlessly long, and hard to type in if you are just doing adhoc queries.