Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Relational database design question - Surrogate-key or Natural-key?
When I create relational table there is a temptation to choose primary key column the column which values are unique. But for optimization and uniformity purposes I create artifical Id column every time. If there is a column (or columns combination) that should be unique I create Unique Index for that instead of marking them as (composite) primary key column(s).
Is it really a good practice always to prefer artificial "Id" column + indexes instead of natural columns for a primary key?
This is a bit of a religious debate. My personal preference is to have synthetic primary keys rather than natural primary keys but there are good arguments on both sides. Realistically, so long as you are consistent and reasonable, either approach can work well.
If you use natural keys, the two major downsides are the presence of composite keys and mutating primary key values. If you have composite primary keys, you'd obviously have to have multiple columns in each child table. That can get unwieldy from a data model perspective when there are many relationships among entities. But it can also cause grief for people developing queries-- it's awfully easy to create queries that use N-1 of N join conditions and get almost the right result. If you have natural keys, you'll also inevitably encounter a situation where the natural key value changes and you then have to ripple that change through many different entities-- that's vastly more complicated than changing a unique value in the table.
On the other hand, if you use synthetic keys, you're wasting space by adding additional columns, adding additional overhead to maintain an additional index, and you're increasing the risk that you'll get functionally duplicated results. It's awfully easy to either forget to create a unique constraint on the business key or to see that there is a non-unique index on the combination and just assume that it was a unique index. I actually just got bitten by this particular failing a couple days ago-- I had indexed the composite natural key (with a non-unique index) rather than creating a unique constraint. Dumb mistake but one that's relatively easy to make.
From a query writing and naming convention standpoint, I would also tend to prefer synthetic keys because it's nice to know when you're joining tables that the primary key of A is going to be A_ID and the primary key of B is going to be B_ID. That's far more self-documenting than trying to remember that the primary key of A is the combination of A_NAME and A_REVISION_NUMBER and that the primary key of B is B_CODE.
There is little or no difference between a key enforced through a PRIMARY KEY constraint and a key enforced through a UNIQUE constraint. What's important is that you enforce ALL the keys necessary from a data integrity perspective. Usually that means at least one "natural" key (a key exposed to the users/consumers of the data and used to identify the facts about the universe of discourse) per table.
Optionally you might also want to create "technical" keys to support the application and database features rather than the end user (usually called surrogate keys). That should be very much a secondary consideration however. In the interests of simplicity (and very often performance as well) it usually makes sense only to create surrogate keys where you have identified a particular need for them and not before.
It depends on your natural columns. If they are small and steadily increasing, then they are good candidates for the primary key.
Small - the smaller the key, the more values you can get into a single row, and the faster your index scans will be
Steadily increasing - produces fewer index reshuffles as the table grows, improving performance.
My preference is to always use an artificial key.
First it is consistent. Anyone working on your application knows that there is a key and they can make assumptions on it. This makes it easier to understand and maintain.
I've also seen scenarios where the natural key (aka. a string from an HR system that identifies an employee) has to change during the life of the application. If you have an artificial key that links the natural id to your employee record then you only have to change that natural id in the one table. However, if that natural id is a primary key and you have it duplicated across a number of other tables as a foreign key, then you have a mess on your hands.
In my humble opinion, it is always better to have an artificial Id, if I understand properly your meaning of it.
Some people would use, for instance, business significant unique values as their table Id, and I have already read on MSDN, and even in the NHibernate official documentation that a unique business meaningless value is prefered (artificial Id), though you want to create an index on that value for future reference. So, the day the company will change their nomenclature, the system shall still be running flawlessly.
Yes, it is. If nothing else, one of the most important properties of the artificial primary key is opacity, which means the artificial key doesn't reflect any information beyond itself; if you use natural row contents for keys, you wind up exposing that information to things like Web interfaces, which is just a terrible idea on all manner of principle.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
Almost every table in every database I've seen in my 7 years of development experience has an auto-incrementing primary key. Why is this? If I have a table of U.S. states where each state where each state must have a unique name, what's the use of an auto-incrementing primary key? Why not just use the state name as the primary key? Seems to me like an excuse to allow duplicates disguised as unique rows.
This seems plainly obvious to me, but then again, no one else seems to be arriving at and acting on the same logical conclusion as me, so I must assume there's a good chance I'm wrong.
Is there any real, practical reason we need to use auto-incrementing keys?
This question has been asked numerous times on SO and has been the subject of much debate over the years amongst (and between) developers and DBAs.
Let me start by saying that the premise of you question implies that one approach is universally superior to the other ... this is rarely the case in real life. Surrogate keys and natural keys both have their uses and challenges - and it's important to understand what they are. Whichever choice you make in your system, keep in mind there is benefit to consistency - it makes the data model easier to understand and easier to develop queries and applications for. I also want to say that I tend to prefer surrogate keys over natural keys for PKs ... but that doesn't mean that natural keys can't sometimes be useful in that role.
It is important to realize that surrogate and natural keys are NOT mutually exclusive - and in many cases they can complement each other. Keep in mind that a "key" for a database table is simply something that uniquely identifies a record (row). It's entirely possible for a single row to have multiple keys representing the different categories of constraints that make a record unique.
A primary key, on the other hand, is a particular unique key that the database will use to enforce referential integrity and to represent a foreign key in other tables. There can only be a single primary key for any table. The essential quality of a primary key is that it be 100% unique and non-NULL. A desirable quality of a primary key is that it be stable (unchanging). While mutable primary keys are possible - they cause many problems for database that are better avoided (cascading updates, RI failures, etc). If you do choose to use a surrogate primary key for your table(s) - you should also consider creating unique constraints to reflect the existence of any natural keys.
Surrogate keys are beneficial in cases where:
Natural keys are not stable (values may change over time)
Natural keys are large or unwieldy (multiple columns or long values)
Natural keys can change over time (columns added/removed over time)
By providing a short, stable, unique value for every row, we can reduce the size of the database, improve its performance, and reduce the volatility of dependent tables which store foreign keys. There's also the benefit of key polymorphism, which I'll get to later.
In some instances, using natural keys to express relationships between tables can be problematic. For instance, imagine you had a PERSON table whose natural key was {LAST_NAME, FIRST_NAME, SSN}. What happens if you have some other table GRANT_PROPOSAL in which you need to store a reference to a Proposer, Reviewer, Approver, and Authorizer. You now need 12 columns to express this information. You also need to come up with a naming convention of some kind to identify which columns belong to which kind of individual. But what if your PERSON table required 6, or 8, or 24 columns to for a natural key? This rapidly becomes unmanageable. Surrogate keys resolve such problems by divorcing the semantics (meaning) of a key from its use as an identifier.
Let's also take a look at the example you described in your question.
Should the 2-character abbreviation of a state be used as the primary key of that table.
On the surface, it looks like the abbreviation field meets the requirements of a good primary key. It's relatively short, it is easy to propagate as a foreign key, it looks stable. Unfortunately, you don't control the set of abbreviations ... the postal service does. And here's an interesting fact: in 1973 the USPS changed the abbreviation of Nebraska from NB to NE to minimize confusion with New Brunswick, Canada. The moral of the story is that natural keys are often outside of the control of the database ... and they can change over time. Even when you think they cannot. This problem is even more pronounced for more complicated data like people, or products, etc. As businesses evolve, the definitions for what makes such entities unique can change. And this can create significant problems for data modelers and application developers.
Earlier I mentioned that primary keys can support key polymorphism. What does that mean? Well, polymorphism is the ability of one type, A, to appear as and be used like another type, B. In databases, this concept refers to the ability to combine keys from different classes of entities into a single table. Let's look at an example. Imagine for a moment that you want have an audit trail in your system that identifies which entities were modified by which user on what date. It would be nice to create a table with the fields: {ENTITY_ID, USER_ID, EDIT_DATE}. Unfortunately, using natural keys, different entities have different keys. So now we need to create a separate linking table for each kind of entity ... and build our application in a manner where it understand the different kinds of entities and how their keys are shaped.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that surrogate keys should ALWAYS be used. In the real world never, ever, and always are a dangerous position to adopt. One of the biggest drawbacks of surrogate keys is that they can result in tables that have foreign keys consisting of lots of "meaningless" numbers. This can make it cumbersome to interpret the meaning of a record since you have to join or lookup records from other tables to get a complete picture. It also can make a distributed database deployment more complicated, as assigning unique incrementing numbers across servers isn't always possible (although most modern database like Oracle and SQLServer mitigate this via sequence replication).
No.
In most cases, having a surrogate INT IDENTITY key is an easy option: it can be guaranteed to be NOT NULL and 100% unique, something a lot of "natural" keys don't offer - names can change, so can SSN's and other items of information.
In the case of state abbreviations and names - if anything, I'd use the two-letter state abbreviation as a key.
A primary key must be:
unique (100% guaranteed! Not just "almost" unique)
NON NULL
A primary key should be:
stable if ever possible (not change - or at least not too frequently)
State two-letter codes definitely would offer this - that might be a candidate for a natural key. A key should also be small - an INT of 4 bytes is perfect, a two-letter CHAR(2) column just the same. I would not ever use a VARCHAR(100) field or something like that as a key - it's just too clunky, most likely will change all the time - not a good key candidate.
So while you don't have to have an auto-incrementing "artificial" (surrogate) primary key, it's often quite a good choice, since no naturally occuring data is really up to the task of being a primary key, and you want to avoid having huge primary keys with several columns - those are just too clunky and inefficient.
I think the use of the word "Primary", in the phrase "Primary" Key is in a real sense, misleading.
First, use the definition that a "key" is an attribute or set of attributes that must be unique within the table,
Then, having any key serves several often mutually inconsistent purposes.
Purpose 1. To use as joins conditions to one or many records in child tables which have a relationship to this parent table. (Explicitly or implicitly defining a Foreign Key in those child tables)
Purpose 2. (related) Ensuring that child records must have a parent record in the parent table (The child table FK must exist as Key in the parent table)
Purpose 3. To increase performance of queries that need to rapidly locate a specific record/row in the table.
Purpose 4. (Most Important from data consistency perspective!) To ensure data consistency by preventing duplicate rows which represent the same logical entity from being inserted itno the table. (This is often called a "natural" key, and should consist of table (entity) attributes which are relatively invariant.)
Clearly, any non-meaningfull, non-natural key (like a GUID or an auto-generated integer is totally incapable of satisfying Purpose 4.
But often, with many (most) tables, a totally natural key which can provide #4 will often consist of multiple attributes and be excessively wide, or so wide that using it for purposes #1, #2, or #3 will cause unacceptable performance consequencecs.
The answer is simple. Use both. Use a simple auto-Generating integral key for all Joins and FKs in other child tables, but ensure that every table that requires data consistency (very few tables don't) have an alternate natural unique key that will prevent inserts of inconsistent data rows... Plus, if you always have both, then all the objections against using a natural key (what if it changes? I have to change every place it is referenced as a FK) become moot, as you are not using it for that... You are only using it in the one table where it is a PK, to avoid inconsistent duplciate data...
The only time you can get away without both is for a completely stand alone table that participates in no relationships with other tables and has an obvious and reliable natural key.
In general, a numeric primary key will perform better than a string. You can additionaly create unique keys to prevent duplicates from creeping in. That way you get the assurance of no duplicates, but you also get the performance of numbers (vs. strings in your scenario).
In all likelyhood, the major databases have some performance optimizations for integer-based primary keys that are not present for string-based primary keys. But, that is only a reasonable guess.
Yes, in my opinion every table needs an auto incrementing integer key because it makes both JOINs and (especially) front-end programming much, much, much easier. Others feel differently, but this is over 20 years of experience speaking.
The single exception is small "code" or "lookup" tables in which I'm willing to substitute a short (4 or 5 character) TEXT code value. I do this because the I often use a lot of these in my databases and it allows me to present a meaningful display to the user without having to look up the description in the lookup table or JOIN it into a result set. Your example of a States table would fit in this category.
No, absolutely not.
Having a primary key which can't change is a good idea (UPDATE is legal for primary key columns, but in general potentially confusing and can create problems for child rows). But if your application has some other candidate which is more suitable than an auto-incrementing value, then you should probably use that instead.
Performance-wise, in general fewer columns are better, and particularly fewer indexes. If you have another column which has a unique index on it AND can never be changed by any business process, then it may be a suitable primary key.
Speaking from a MySQL (Innodb) perspective, it's also a good idea to use a "real" column as a primary key rather than an "artificial" one, as InnoDB always clusters the primary key and includes it in secondary indexes (that is how it finds the rows in them). This gives it potential to do useful optimisation with a primary key which it can't with any other unique index. MSSQL users often choose to cluster the primary key, but it can also cluster a different unique index.
EDIT:
But if it's a small database and you don't really care about performance or size too much, adding an unnecessary auto-increment column isn't that bad.
A non auto-incrementing value (e.g. UUID, or some other string generated according to your own algorithm) may be useful for distributed, sharded, or diverse systems where maintaining a consistent auto-incrementing ID is difficult (or impossible - think of a distributed system which continues to insert rows on both sides of a network partition).
I think there are two things that may explain the reason why auto-incrementing keys are sometimes used:
Space consideration; ok your state name doesn't amount to much, but the space it takes may add up. If you really want to store the state with its name as a primary key, then go ahead, but it will take more place. That may not be a problem in certain cases, and it sounds like a problem of olden days, but the habit is perhaps ingrained. And we programmers and DBA do love habits :D
Defensive consideration: i recently had the following problem; we have users in the database where the email is the key to all identification. Why not make the email the promary key? except suddenly border cases creep in where one guy must be there twice to have two different adresses, and nobody talked about it in the specs so the adress is not normalized, and there's this situation where two different emails must point to the same person and... After a while, you stop pulling your hairs out and add the damn integer id column
I'm not saying it's a bad habit, nor a good one; i'm sure good systems can be designed around reasonable primary keys, but these two points lead me to believe fear and habit are two among the culprits
It's a key component of relational databases. Having an integer relate to a state instead of having the whole state name saves a bunch of space in your database! Imagine you have a million records referencing your state table. Do you want to use 4 bytes for a number on each of those records or do you want to use a whole crapload of bytes for each state name?
Here are some practical considerations.
Most modern ORMs (rails, django, hibernate, etc.) work best when there is a single integer column as the primary key.
Additionally, having a standard naming convention (e.g. id as primary key and table_name_id for foreign keys) makes identifying keys easier.
I've been reading up on foreign keys and such for postgres and I noticed that it allows a cascading update for foreign keys.
Well, my question is, when would you need to update the primary key of a row?
Apparently this guy needs to http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2004/10/hey_sql_fans_check_out_foreign.html but I'm not quite understanding how it could ever be useful.
Edit:
I see for natural primary keys, how this could be used. But what about technical primary keys? Ones that have no meaning and are almost always auto generated on insert?
Well... we have a lot of primary keys that are defined as a human readable code. Terrible idea, but not much choice in the matter.
It is very very handy to be able to fix that PK, and all dependent records, when someone realizes it is misspelled, or the meaning has changed.
You would need to do it if you chose your primary key as a natural key instead of a surrogate key, and then later found out that the user changed their surname, or that they wrote their SSN incorrectly on the application form.
Moral of story: don't use natural keys as primary keys.
I had to change my PK several times, when exposing my PK to a third party system. From time to time they called us asking to change the PKs, to fit the records in their database (from time to time due to tech problem, the synchronization between there two systems - fails).
After several times we just stopped exposing the PK and add a new column.
For a synthetic, meaningless primary key like an autoincrementing column there should (with a few exceptions) never be any reason to update the PK value. If the PK is a user-visible value you might have to update it (which is one of the many arguments in favour of synthetic keys). An example of this situation is an insurance policy number. In some cases the year is a part of the number, and may tick over on every renewal. In some data models the record is just updated in situ.
Where this happens you would be better off to use a synthetic key, so that other items are not dependent on the visible number.
One possible scenario where you would need to update a synthetic key is if you were merging two or more application databases together. In this case you may need to shift keys en masse to avoid collissions with the keys of records from the other source.
You may get in this situation if you use natural primary key.
Here's one very fresh example: in Croatia government changed tax identification numbers for both companies and individuals. New law was introduced with January 1st 2010.
Last year, I was consultant in several projects where companies were changing natural key (old tax number) to surrogate key in existing applications. Natural key seemed logical selection to original designers of those apps because it was defined by law. And then it changed.
For autogenerated keys, one example that I came across here (can't remember question) is if you need to merge two database tables together. In this case, you'll likely have duplicates unless your keys happened to be offset enough.
You might need to do this if using a natural primary key (one that has an actual meaning in the problem domain). If the meaning changed, then you'd need to cascade the change.
I supposed a bad example of this would be a database of buildings on a school campus, with the building name as a primary key (don't do this at home). If the building is renamed to bribe honor a new donor, then the key would need to change.
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.
What are the down sides of using a composite/compound primary key?
Could cause more problems for normalisation (2NF, "Note that when a 1NF table has no composite candidate keys (candidate keys consisting of more than one attribute), the table is automatically in 2NF")
More unnecessary data duplication. If your composite key consists of 3 columns, you will need to create the same 3 columns in every table, where it is used as a foreign key.
Generally avoidable with the help of surrogate keys (read about their advantages and disadvantages)
I can imagine a good scenario for composite key -- in a table representing a N:N relation, like Students - Classes, and the key in the intermediate table will be (StudentID, ClassID). But if you need to store more information about each pair (like a history of all marks of a student in a class) then you'll probably introduce a surrogate key.
There's nothing wrong with having a compound key per se, but a primary key should ideally be as small as possible (in terms of number of bytes required). If the primary key is long then this will cause non-clustered indexes to be bloated.
Bear in mind that the order of the columns in the primary key is important. The first column should be as selective as possible i.e. as 'unique' as possible. Searches on the first column will be able to seek, but searches just on the second column will have to scan, unless there is also a non-clustered index on the second column.
I think this is a specialisation of the synthetic key debate (whether to use meaningful keys or an arbitrary synthetic primary key). I come down almost completely on the synthetic key side of this debate for a number of reasons. These are a few of the more pertinent ones:
You have to keep dependent child
tables on the end of a foriegn key
up to date. If you change the the
value of one of the primary key
fields (which can happen - see
below) you have to somehow change
all of the dependent tables where
their PK value includes these
fields. This is a bit tricky
because changing key values will
invalidate FK relationships with
child tables so you may (depending
on the constraint validation options
available on your platform) have to
resort to tricks like copying the
record to a new one and deleting the
old records.
On a deep schema the keys can get
quite wide - I've seen 8 columns
once.
Changes in primary key values can be
troublesome to identify in ETL
processes loading off the system.
The example I once had occasion to
see was an MIS application
extracting from an insurance
underwriting system. On some
occasions a policy entry would be
re-used by the customer, changing
the policy identifier. This was a
part of the primary key of the
table. When this happens the
warehouse load is not aware of what
the old value was so it cannot match
the new data to it. The developer
had to go searching through audit
logs to identify the changed value.
Most of the issues with non-synthetic primary keys revolve around issues when PK values of records change. The most useful applications of non-synthetic values are where a database schema is intended to be used, such as an M.I.S. application where report writers are using the tables directly. In this case short values with fixed domains such as currency codes or dates might reasonably be placed directly on the table for convenience.
I would recommend a generated primary key in those cases with a unique not null constraint on the natural composite key.
If you use the natural key as primary then you will most likely have to reference both values in foreign key references to make sure you are identifying the correct record.
Take the example of a table with two candidate keys: one simple (single-column) and one compound (multi-column). Your question in that context seems to be, "What disadvantage may I suffer if I choose to promote one key to be 'primary' and I choose the compound key?"
First, consider whether you actually need to promote a key at all: "the very existence of the PRIMARY KEY in SQL seems to be an historical accident of some kind. According to author Chris Date the earliest incarnations of SQL didn't have any key constraints and PRIMARY KEY was only later addded to the SQL standards. The designers of the standard obviously took the term from E.F.Codd who invented it, even though Codd's original notion had been abandoned by that time! (Codd originally proposed that foreign keys must only reference one key - the primary key - but that idea was forgotten and ignored because it was widely recognised as a pointless limitation)." [source: David Portas' Blog: Down with Primary Keys?
Second, what criteria would you apply to choose which key in a table should be 'primary'?
In SQL, the choice of key PRIMARY KEY is arbitrary and product specific. In ACE/Jet (a.k.a. MS Access) the two main and often competing factors is whether you want to use PRIMARY KEY to favour clustering on disk or whether you want the columns comprising the key to appears as bold in the 'Relationships' picture in the MS Access user interface; I'm in the minority by thinking that index strategy trumps pretty picture :) In SQL Server, you can specify the clustered index independently of the PRIMARY KEY and there seems to be no product-specific advantage afforded. The only remaining advantage seems to be the fact you can omit the columns of the PRIMARY KEY when creating a foreign key in SQL DDL, being a SQL-92 Standard behaviour and anyhow doesn't seem such a big deal to me (perhaps another one of the things they added to the Standard because it was a feature already widespread in SQL products?) So, it's not a case of looking for drawbacks, rather, you should be looking to see what advantage, if any, your SQL product gives the PRIMARY KEY. Put another way, the only drawback to choosing the wrong key is that you may be missing out on a given advantage.
Third, are you rather alluding to using an artificial/synthetic/surrogate key to implement in your physical model a candidate key from your logical model because you are concerned there will be performance penalties if you use the natural key in foreign keys and table joins? That's an entirely different question and largely depends on your 'religious' stance on the issue of natural keys in SQL.
Need more specificity.
Taken too far, it can overcomplicate Inserts (Every key MUST exist) and documentation and your joined reads could be suspect if incomplete.
Sometimes it can indicate a flawed data model (is a composite key REALLY what's described by the data?)
I don't believe there is a performance cost...it just can go really wrong really easily.
when you se it on a diagram are less readable
when you use it on a query join are less
readable
when you use it on a foregein key
you have to add a check constraint
about all the attribute have to be
null or not null (if only one is
null the key is not checked)
usualy need more storage when use it
as foreign key
some tool doesn't manage composite
key
The main downside of using a compound primary key, is that you will confuse the hell out of typical ORM code generators.