I recently ran into a quite complex problem and after looking around a lot I couldn't find a solution to it. I've found answers to my questions many times before on stackoverflow.com, so I decided to post here.
So I'm making a user/group managment system for a web-based project, and I'm storing all related data into a postgreSQL database. This system relies on three tables:
USERS (Contains the primary key "USER_ID")
GROUPS (Contains the primary key "GROUP_ID")
GROUP_USERS
The two first tables simply define all the users and all the groups on the site, and the last table, GROUP_USERS, stores the groups every user is part of. It only has two columns:
USER_ID
GROUP_ID
Since every user can be a member of several groups, I decided to make a separate table for this purpose, rather than storing a comma separated column in the USERS-table.
Now, both columns are foreign keys, and I want to make them a composite primary key as well, this since each combination of USER_ID and GROUP_ID has to be unique. But now I am stuck with what seems to be a lot of indexes and relations to a very small table only containing numbers. In the end, I want this table to be as fast as possible, even if containing tens of thousands of rows. Size on disk shouldn't be a problem since its just all numbers anyway, but it feels quite stupid to have a full-sized index refering to a smaller table.
Should I stick with my current solution, store comma-separated values in a column in the USERS-table or is there any other solution I should be aware of. What I am looking for is best possible performance. This table could potentially (but not likely or commonly) be queried several hundreds of times on a single page load.
I don't want to use an array-column, even if they are supported by postgreSQL. I want to be as generic as possible so I can switch database later on, if necessary.
EDIT: In other words, will using a composite primary key and two foreign keys in one table with only two columns have a negative impact on performance rather than the opposite due to the size of the generated index?
EDIT2: Clarifications.
Thank you!
I believe you're in the right path right now, but didn't understand which indexes you really defined.
My suggestion is that you should have your primary key index in USERS by USER_ID, your primary key index in GROUPS by GROUP_ID, and two more indexes in GROUP_USERS. One of the indexes in GROUP_USERS should be either by the couple (USER_ID, GROUP_ID), or by the couple (GROUP_ID, USER_ID). The second index should be by the field that was left in second place in the last index defined.
Now why did I mentioned two options while defining the primary key over GROUP_USERS? That's because there is a slightly performance difference between a primary key index and any other duplicate index. It's very likely that your most common query into that table would be to find out if a user is in a certain group, and that query will perform fast in either way. What you have to consider is which of the following two queries will be more common.
Query which groups a certain user is in.
Query which users are in a certain group.
If 1 is more likely over 2, then your primary key should be (USER_ID, GROUP_ID), otherwise (GROUP_ID, USER_ID).
If I understand your question properly, what you might be missing is that Primary Keys (for that matter, Foreign Keys as well) can be what is called Composite, meaning that they contain more than one column... That's what you want here. A composite Primary Key on both UserId and GroupId, and a Foreign Key on each one indivudyally, that each points to (references) the PK in the respective parent table.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Surrogate vs. natural/business keys [closed]
(19 answers)
Why would one consider using Surrogate keys vs Natural with ON UPDATE CASCADE?
(1 answer)
Closed 7 months ago.
Recently I Inherited a huge app from somebody who left the company.
This app used a SQL server DB .
Now the developer always defines an int base primary key on tables. for example even if Users table has a unique UserName field , he always added an integer identity primary key.
This is done for every table no matter if other fields could be unique and define primary key.
Do you see any benefits whatsoever on this? using UserName as primary key vs adding UserID(identify column) and set that as primary key?
I feel like I have to add add another element to my comments, which started to produce an essay of comments, so I think it is better that I post it all as an answer instead.
Sometimes there are domain specific reasons why a candidate key is not a good candidate for joins (maybe people change user names so often that the required cascades start causing performance problems). But another reason to add an ever-increasing surrogate is to make it the clustered index. A static and ever-increasing clustered index alleviates a high-cost IO operation known as a page split. So even with a good natural candidate key, it can be useful to add a surrogate and cluster on that. Read this for further details.
But if you add such a surrogate, recognise that the surrogate is purely internal, it is there for performance reasons only. It does not guarantee the integrity of your data. It has no meaning in the model, unless it becomes part of the model. For example, if you are generating invoice numbers as an identity column, and sending those values out into the real world (on invoice documents/emails/etc), then it's not a surrogate, it's part of the model. It can be meaningfully referenced by the customer who received the invoice, for example.
One final thing that is typically left out of this discussion is one particular aspect of join performance. It is often said that the primary key should also be narrow, because it can make joins more performant, as well as reducing the size of non-clustered indexes. And that's true.
But a natural primary key can eliminate the need for a join in the first place.
Let's put all this together with an example:
create table Countries
(
countryCode char(2) not null primary key clustered,
countryName varchar(64) not null
);
insert Countries values
('AU', 'Australia'),
('FR', 'France');
create table TourLocations
(
tourLocationName varchar(64) not null,
tourLocationId int identity(1,1) unique clustered,
countryCode char(2) not null foreign key references Countries(countryCode),
primary key (countryCode, tourLocationName)
);
insert TourLocations (TourLocationName, countryCode) values
('Bondi Beach', 'AU'),
('Eiffel Tower', 'FR')
I did not add a surrogate key to Countries, because there aren't many rows and we're not going to be constantly inserting new rows. I already know what all the countries are, and they don't change very often.
On the TourLocations table I have added an identity and clustered on it. There could be very many tour locations, changing all the time.
But I still must have a natural key on TourLocations. Otherwise I could insert the same tour location name with the same country twice. Sure, the Id's will be different. But the Id's don't mean anything. As far as any real human is concerned, two tour locations with the same name and country code are completely indistinguishable. Do you intend to have actual users using the system? Then you've got a problem.
By putting the same country and location name in twice I haven't created two facts in my database. I have created the same fact twice! No good. The natural key is necessary. In this sense The Impaler's answer is strictly, necessarily, wrong. You cannot not have a natural key. If the natural key can't be defined as anything other than "every meaningful column in the table" (that is to say, excluding the surrogate), so be it.
OK, now let's investigate the claim that an int identity key is advantageous because it helps with joins. Well, in this case my char(2) country code is narrower than an int would have been.
But even if it wasn't (maybe we think we can get away with a tinyint), those country codes are meaningful to real people, which means a lot of the time I don't have to do the join at all.
Suppose I gave the results of this query to my users:
select countryCode, tourLocationName
from TourLocations
order by 1, 2;
Very many people will not need me to provide the countries.countryName column for them to know which country is represented by the code in each of those rows. I don't have to do the join.
When you're dealing with a specific business domain that becomes even more likely. Meaningful codes are understood by the domain users. They often don't need to see the long description columns from the key table. So in many cases no join is required to give the users all of the information they need.
If I had foreign keyed to an identity surrogate I would have to do the join, because the identity surrogate doesn't mean anything to anyone.
You are talking about the difference between synthetic and natural keys.
In my [very] personal opinion, I would recommend to always use synthetic keys (and always call it id). The main problem is that natural keys are never unique; they are unique in theory, yes, but in the real world there are a myriad of unexpected and inexorable events that will make this false.
In database design:
Natural keys correspond to values present in the domain model. For example, UserName, SSN, VIN can be considered natural keys.
Synthetic keys are values not present in the domain model. They are just numeric/string/UUID values that have no relationship with the actual data. They only serve as a unique identifiers for the rows.
I would say, stick to synthetic keys and sleep well at night. You never know what the Marketing Department will come up with on Monday, and suddenly "the username is not unique anymore".
Yes having a dedicated int is a good thing for PK use.
you may have multiple alternate keys, that's ok too.
two great reasons for it:
it is performant
it protects against key mutation ( editing a name etc. )
A username or any such unique field that holds meaningful data is subject to changes. A name may have been misspelled or you might want to edit a name to choose a better one, etc. etc.
Primary keys are used to identify records and, in conjunction with foreign keys, to connect records in different tables. They should never change. Therefore, it is better to use a meaningless int field as primary key.
By meaningless I mean that apart from being the primary key it has no meaning to the users.
An int identity column has other advantages over a text field as primary key.
It is generated by the database engine and is guaranteed to be unique in multi-user scenarios.
it is faster than a text column.
Text can have leading spaces, hidden characters and other oddities.
There are multiple kinds of text data types, multiple character sets and culture dependent behaviors resulting in text comparisons not always working as expected.
int primary keys generated in ascending order have a superior performance in conjunction with clustered primary keys (which is a SQL-Server specialty).
Note that I am talking from a database point of view. In the user interface, users will prefer identifying entries by name or e-mail address, etc.
But commands like SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE will always identify records by the primary key.
This subject - quite much like gulivar travels and wars being fought over which end of the egg you supposed to crack open to eat.
However, using the SAME "id" name for all tables, and autonumber? Yes, it is LONG establihsed choice.
There are of course MANY different views on this subject, and many advantages and disavantages.
Regardless of which choice one perfers (or even needs), this is a long established concept in our industry. In fact SharePoint tables use "ID" and autonumber by defualt. So does ms-access, and there probably more that do this.
The simple concpet?
You can build your tables with the PK and child tables with forighen keys.
At that point you setup your relationships between the tables.
Now, you might decide to add say some invoice number or whatever. Rules might mean that such invoice number is not duplicated.
But, WHY do we care of you have some "user" name, or some "invoice" number or whatever. Why should that fact effect your relational database model?
You mean I don't have a user name, or don't have a invoice number, and the whole database and relatonships don't work anymore? We don't care!!!!
The concept of data, even required fields, or even a column having to be unique ?
That has ZERO to do with a working relational data model.
And maybe you decide that invoice number is not generated until say sent to the customer. So, the fact of some user name, invoice number or whatever? Don't care - you can have all kinds of business rules for those numbers, but they have ZERO do to do with the fact that you designed a working relational data model based on so called "surrogate" or sometime called synthetic keys.
So, once you build that data model - even with JUST the PK "id" and FK (forighen keys), you are NOW free to start adding columns and define what type of data you going to put in each table. but, what you shove into each table has ZERO to do with that working related data model. They are to be thought as seperate concpets.
So, if you have a user name - add that column to the table. If you don't want users name, remove the column. As such data you store in the table has ZERO to do with the automatic PK ID you using - it not really any different then say what area of memory the computer going to allocate to load that data. Basic data operations of the system is has nothing to do with having build database with relationships that simple exist. And the data columns you add after having built those relationships is up to you - but will not, and should not effect the operation of the database and relationships you built and setup. Not only are these two concepts separate, but they free the developer from having to worry about the part that maintains the relationships as opposed to data column you add to such tables to store user data.
I mean, in json data, xml? We often have a master + child table relationship. We don't care how that relationship is maintained - but only that it exists.
Thus yes, all tables have that pk "ID". Even better? in code, you NEVER have to guess what the PK id is - it always the same!!!
So, data and columns you put and toss into a table? Those columns and data have zero to do with the PK id, and while it is the database generating that PK? It could be a web service call to some monkeys living in a far away jungle eating banana's and they give you a PK value based on how many bananas they eaten. We just really don't' care about that number - it is just internal house keeping numbers - one that we don't see or even care about in most code. And thus the number one rule to such auto matic PK values?
You NEVER give that auto PK number any meaning from a user and applcation point of view.
In summary:
Yes, using a PK called "id" for all tables? Common, and in fact in SharePoint and many systems, it not only the default, but is in fact required for such systems to operate.
Its better to use userid. User table is referenced by many other tables.
The referenced table would contain the primary key of the user table as foreign key.
Its better to use userid since its integer value,
it takes less space than string values of username and
the searches by the database engine would be faster
user(userid, username, name)
comments(commentid, comment, userid) would be better than
comments(commentid, comment, username)
Traditionally I have always used an ID column in SQL (mostly mysql and postgresql).
However I am wondering if it is really necessary if the rest of the columns in each row make in unique. In my latest project I have the "ID" column set as my primary key, however I never call it or use it in any way, as the data in the row makes it unique and is much more useful for me.
So, if every row in a SQL table is unique, does it need a primary key ID table, and are there ant performance changes with or without one?
Thanks!
EDIT/Additional info:
The specific example that made me ask this question is a table I am using for a many-to-many-to-many-to-many table (if we still call it that at that point) it has 4 columns (plus ID) each of which represents an ID of an external table, and each row will always be numeric and unique. only one of the columns is allowed to be null.
I understand that for normal tables an ID primary key column is a VERY good thing to have. But I get the feeling on this particular table it just wastes space and slows down adding new rows.
If you really do have some pre-existing column in your data set that already does uniquely identify your row - then no, there's no need for an extra ID column. The primary key however must be unique (in ALL circumstances) and cannot be empty (must be NOT NULL).
In my 20+ years of experience in database design, however, this is almost never truly the case. Most "natural" ID's that appear to be unique aren't - ultimately. US Social Security Numbers aren't guaranteed to be unique, and most other "natural" keys end up being almost unique - and that's just not good enough for a database system.
So if you really do have a proper, unique key in your data already - use it! But most of the time, it's easier and more convenient to have just a single surrogate ID that you can guarantee will be unique over all rows.
Don't confuse the logical model with the implementation.
The logical model shows a candidate key (all columns) which could makes your primary key.
Great. However...
In practice, having a multi column primary key has downsides: it's wide, not good when clustered etc. There is plenty of information out there and in the "related" questions list on the right
So, you'd typically
add a surrogate key (ID column)
add a unique constraint to keep the other columns unique
the ID column will be the clustered key (can be only one per table)
You can make either key the primary key now
The main exception is link or many-to-many tables that link 2 ID columns: a surrogate isn't needed (unless you have a braindead ORM)
Edit, a link: "What should I choose for my primary key?"
Edit2
For many-many tables: SQL: Do you need an auto-incremental primary key for Many-Many tables?
Yes, you could have many attributes (values) in a record (row) that you could use to make a record unique. This would be called a composite primary key.
However it will be much slower in general because the construction of the primary index will be much more expensive. The primary index is used by relational database management systems (RDBMS) not only to determine uniqueness, but also in how they order and structure records on disk.
A simple primary key of one incrementing value is generally the most performant and the easiest solution for the RDBMS to manage.
You should have one column in every table that is unique.
EDITED...
This is one of the fundamentals of database table design. It's the row identifier - the identifier identifies which row(s) are being acted upon (updated/deleted etc). Relying on column combinations that are "unique", eg (first_name, last_name, city), as your key can quickly lead to problems when two John Smiths exist, or worse when John Smith moves city and you get a collision.
In most cases, it's best to use a an artificial key that's guaranteed to be unique - like an auto increment integer. That's why they are so popular - they're needed. Commonly, the key column is simply called id, or sometimes <tablename>_id. (I prefer id)
If natural data is available that is unique and present for every row (perhaps retinal scan data for people), you can use that, but all-to-often, such data isn't available for every row.
Ideally, you should have only one unique column. That is, there should only be one key.
Using IDs to key tables means you can change the content as needed without having to repoint things
Ex. if every row points to a unique user, what would happen if he/she changed his name to let say John Blblblbe which had already been in db? And then again, what would happen if you software wants to pick up John Blblblbe's details, whose details would be picked up? the old John's or the one ho has changed his name? Well if answer for bot questions is 'nothing special gonna happen' then, yep, you don't really need "ID" column :]
Important:
Also, having a numeric ID column with numbers is much more faster when you're looking for an exact row even when the table hasn't got any indexing keys or have more than one unique
If you are sure that any other column is going to have unique data for every row and isn't going to have NULL at any time then there is no need of separate ID column to distinguish each row from others, you can make that existing column primary key for your table.
No, single-attribute keys are not essential and nor are surrogate keys. Keys should have as many attributes as are necessary for data integrity: to ensure that uniqueness is maintained, to represent accurately the universe of discourse and to allow users to identify the data of interest to them. If you have already identified a suitable key and if you don't find any real need to create another one then it would make no sense to add redundant attributes and indexes to your table.
An ID can be more meaningful, for an example an employee id can represent from which department he is, year of he join and so on. Apart from that RDBMS supports lots operations with ID's.
I am building a database system and having trouble with the design of one of my tables.
In this system there is a users table, an object table, an item table and cost table.
A unique record in the cost table is determine by the user, object, item and year. However, there can be multiple records that have the same year if the item is different.
The hierarchy goes user->object->item->year, multiple unique years per item, multiple unique items per object, multiple unique objects per user, multiple unique users.
What would be the best way to design the cost table?
I am thinking of including the userid, objectid and itemid as foreign keys and then using a composite key consisting of userid, objecid, itemid and costyear. I have heard that composite keys are bad design, but I am unsure how to structure this to get away from using a composite key. As you can tell my database building skills are a bit rusty.
Thanks!
P.S. If it matters, this is an interbase db.
To avoid the composite key, you just define a surrogate key. This holds an artificial value, for instance an auto counter.
You still can (and should) define a unique constraint on these columns.
Btw: its not only recommended not to use composite keys, it's also recommendable to use surrogate keys. In all your tables.
Use an internally generated key field (called surrogate keys), something like CostID, that the users will never see but will uniquely identify each entry in the Cost table (in SqlServer, fields like uniqueidentifier or IDENTITY would do the trick.)
Try building your database with a composite key using exactly the columns you outlined, and see what happens. You may be pleasantly surprised. Making sure that there is no missing data in those four columns, and making sure that no two rows have the same value in all four columns will help protect the integrity of your data.
When you declare a composite primary key, the order of columns in your declaration won't affect the logical consequences of the dclaration. However the composite index that the DBMS builds for you will also have the columns in the same order, and the order of columns in a composite index does affect performance.
For queries that specify only one, two, or three of these columns, the index will be useless if the first column in the index is a column not specified in the query. If you know in advance how your queries are gonig to me, and which queries most need to run fast, this can help you declare the columns for the primary key in the right order. In rare circumstances creating two or three additional one column indexes can speed up some queries, at the cost of slowing down updates.
I've recently started developing my first serious application which uses a SQL database, and I'm using phpMyAdmin to set up the tables. There are a couple optional "features" I can give various columns, and I'm not entirely sure what they do:
Primary Key
Index
I know what a PK is for and how to use it, but I guess my question with regards to that is why does one need one - how is it different from merely setting a column to "Unique", other than the fact that you can only have one PK? Is it just to let the programmer know that this value uniquely identifies the record? Or does it have some special properties too?
I have no idea what "Index" does - in fact, the only times I've ever seen it in use are (1) that my primary keys seem to be indexed, and (2) I heard that indexing is somehow related to performance; that you want indexed columns, but not too many. How does one decide which columns to index, and what exactly does it do?
edit: should one index colums one is likely to want to ORDER BY?
Thanks a lot,
Mala
Primary key is usually used to create a numerical 'id' for your records, and this id column is automatically incremented.
For example, if you have a books table with an id field, where the id is the primary key and is also set to auto_increment (Under 'Extra in phpmyadmin), then when you first add a book to the table, the id for that will become 1'. The next book's id would automatically be '2', and so on. Normally, every table should have at least one primary key to help identifying and finding records easily.
Indexes are used when you need to retrieve certain information from a table regularly. For example, if you have a users table, and you will need to access the email column a lot, then you can add an index on email, and this will cause queries accessing the email to be faster.
However there are also downsides for adding unnecessary indexes, so add this only on the columns that really do need to be accessed more than the others. For example, UPDATE, DELETE and INSERT queries will be a little slower the more indexes you have, as MySQL needs to store extra information for each indexed column. More info can be found at this page.
Edit: Yes, columns that need to be used in ORDER BY a lot should have indexes, as well as those used in WHERE.
The primary key is basically a unique, indexed column that acts as the "official" ID of rows in that table. Most importantly, it is generally used for foreign key relationships, i.e. if another table refers to a row in the first, it will contain a copy of that row's primary key.
Note that it's possible to have a composite primary key, i.e. one that consists of more than one column.
Indexes improve lookup times. They're usually tree-based, so that looking up a certain row via an index takes O(log(n)) time rather than scanning through the full table.
Generally, any column in a large table that is frequently used in WHERE, ORDER BY or (especially) JOIN clauses should have an index. Since the index needs to be updated for evey INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE, it slows down those operations. If you have few writes and lots of reads, then index to your hear's content. If you have both lots of writes and lots of queries that would require indexes on many columns, then you have a big problem.
The difference between a primary key and a unique key is best explained through an example.
We have a table of users:
USER_ID number
NAME varchar(30)
EMAIL varchar(50)
In that table the USER_ID is the primary key. The NAME is not unique - there are a lot of John Smiths and Muhammed Khans in the world. The EMAIL is necessarily unique, otherwise the worldwide email system wouldn't work. So we put a unique constraint on EMAIL.
Why then do we need a separate primary key? Three reasons:
the numeric key is more efficient
when used in foreign key
relationships as it takes less space
the email can change (for example
swapping provider) but the user is
still the same; rippling a change of
a primary key value throughout a schema
is always a nightmare
it is always a bad idea to use
sensitive or private information as
a foreign key
In the relational model, any column or set of columns that is guaranteed to be both present and unique in the table can be called a candidate key to the table. "Present" means "NOT NULL". It's common practice in database design to designate one of the candidate keys as the primary key, and to use references to the primary key to refer to the entire row, or to the subject matter item that the row describes.
In SQL, a PRIMARY KEY constraint amounts to a NOT NULL constraint for each primary key column, and a UNIQUE constraint for all the primary key columns taken together. In practice many primary keys turn out to be single columns.
For most DBMS products, a PRIMARY KEY constraint will also result in an index being built on the primary key columns automatically. This speeds up the systems checking activity when new entries are made for the primary key, to make sure the new value doesn't duplicate an existing value. It also speeds up lookups based on the primary key value and joins between the primary key and a foreign key that references it. How much speed up occurs depends on how the query optimizer works.
Originally, relational database designers looked for natural keys in the data as given. In recent years, the tendency has been to always create a column called ID, an integer as the first column and the primary key of every table. The autogenerate feature of the DBMS is used to ensure that this key will be unique. This tendency is documented in the "Oslo design standards". It isn't necessarily relational design, but it serves some immediate needs of the people who follow it. I do not recommend this practice, but I recognize that it is the prevalent practice.
An index is a data structure that allows for rapid access to a few rows in a table, based on a description of the columns of the table that are indexed. The index consists of copies of certain table columns, called index keys, interspersed with pointers to the table rows. The pointers are generally hidden from the DBMS users. Indexes work in tandem with the query optimizer. The user specifies in SQL what data is being sought, and the optimizer comes up with index strategies and other strategies for translating what is being sought into a stategy for finding it. There is some kind of organizing principle, such as sorting or hashing, that enables an index to be used for fast lookups, and certain other uses. This is all internal to the DBMS, once the database builder has created the index or declared the primary key.
Indexes can be built that have nothing to do with the primary key. A primary key can exist without an index, although this is generally a very bad idea.
Just a quick database design question: Do you ALWAYS use an ID field in EVERY table, or just most of them? Clearly most of your tables will benefit, but are there ever tables that you might not want to use an ID field?
For example, I want to add the ability to add tags to objects in another table (foo). So I've got a table FooTag with a varchar field to hold the tag, and a fooID field to refer to the row in foo. Do I really need to create a clustered index around an essentially arbitrary ID field? Wouldn't it be more efficient to use fooID and my text field as the clustered index, since I will almost always be searching by fooID anyway? Plus using my text in the clustered index would keep the data sorted, making sorting easier when I have to query my data. The downside is that inserts would take longer, but wouldn't that be offset by the gains during selection, which would happen far more often?
What are your thoughts on ID fields? Bendable rule, or unbreakable law?
edit: I am aware that the example provided is not normalized. If tagging is to be a major part of the project, with multiple tables being tagged, and other 'extras', a two-table solution would be a clear answer. However in this simplest case, would normalization be worthwhile? It would save some space, but require an extra join when running queries
As in much of programming: rule, not law.
Proof by exception: Some two-column tables exist only to form relationships between other more meaningful tables.
If you are making tables that bridge between two or more other tables and the only fields you need are the dual PK/FK's, then I don't know why you would need ID column in there as well.
ID columns generally can be very helpful, but that doesn't mean you should go peppering them in at every occasion.
As others have said, it's a general, rather than absolute, rule and there are plenty of exceptions (tables with composite keys for example).
There are some occasional but useful occasions where you might want to create an artificial ID in a table that already has a (usually composite) unique identifier. For example, in one system I've created a table to store part numbers; although the part numbers are unique, they may actually change - we add an arbitrary integer PartID. Not so common, but it's a typical real-world example.
In general what you really want is to be able if at all possible to have some kind of way to uniquely identify a record. It could be an id field or it could be a unique index (which does not have to be on just one field). Anytime I thought I could get away without creating a way to uniquely identify a record, I have been proven wrong. All tables do not have a natural key though and if they do not, you really need to have an id file of some kind. If you have a natural key, you could use that instead, but I find that even then I need an id field in most cases to prevent having to do too much updating when the natural key changes (it always seems to change). Plus having worked with literally hundreds of databases concerning many many differnt topics, I can tell you that a true natural key is rare. As others have nmentioned there is no need for an id field in a table that is simply there to join two tables that havea many to many relationship, but even this should have a unique index.
If you need to retrieve records from that table with unique id then yes. If you will retrieve them by some other composite key made up of foreign keys then no. The last thing you need is fields, data, and indexes that you do not use.
A clustered index does not need to be on primary key or a surrogate (identity column) either.
Your design, however, is not normalized. Typically for tagging, I use two tables, a table of tags (with a surrogate key) and a table of links from the tags to the subject table(s) using the surrogate key in the tag table and theprimary key in the subject table. This allows your tags to apply to different entities (photos, articles, employees, locations, products, whatever). It allows you to enforce foreign key relationships to multiple tables, and also allows you to invent tag hierarchies and other things about the tag table.
As far as the indexes on this design, it will be dictated by the usage patterns.
In general developers love having an ID field on all tables except for 'linking' tables because it makes development much easier, and I am no exception to this. DBA's on the other hand see no problem with making natural primary keys made up of 3 or 4 columns. It can be a butting of heads to try and get a good database design.