I'm running into an issue with a join: getting back too many records. I added a table to the set of joins and the number of rows expanded. Usually when this happens I add a select of all the ID fields that are involved in the join. That way it's pretty obvious where the expansion is happening and I can change the ON of the join to fix it. Except in this case, the table that I added doesn't have an ID field. This is a problem. But perhaps I'm wrong.
Should every table in a database have an IDENTITY field that's used as the PK? Are there any drawbacks to having an ID field in every table? What if you're reasonably sure this table will never be used in a PK/FK relationship?
When having an identity column is not a good idea?
Surrogate vs. natural/business keys
Wikipedia Surrogate Key article
There are two concepts that are close but should not be confused: IDENTITY and PRIMARY KEY
Every table (except for the rare conditions) should have a PRIMARY KEY, that is a value or a set of values that uniquely identify a row.
See here for discussion why.
IDENTITY is a property of a column in SQL Server which means that the column will be filled automatically with incrementing values.
Due to the nature of this property, the values of this column are inherently UNIQUE.
However, no UNIQUE constraint or UNIQUE index is automatically created on IDENTITY column, and after issuing SET IDENTITY_INSERT ON it's possible to insert duplicate values into an IDENTITY column, unless it had been explicity UNIQUE constrained.
The IDENTITY column should not necessarily be a PRIMARY KEY, but most often it's used to fill the surrogate PRIMARY KEYs
It may or may not be useful in any particular case.
Therefore, the answer to your question:
The question: should every table in a database have an IDENTITY field that's used as the PK?
is this:
No. There are cases when a database table should NOT have an IDENTITY field as a PRIMARY KEY.
Three cases come into my mind when it's not the best idea to have an IDENTITY as a PRIMARY KEY:
If your PRIMARY KEY is composite (like in many-to-many link tables)
If your PRIMARY KEY is natural (like, a state code)
If your PRIMARY KEY should be unique across databases (in this case you use GUID / UUID / NEWID)
All these cases imply the following condition:
You shouldn't have IDENTITY when you care for the values of your PRIMARY KEY and explicitly insert them into your table.
Update:
Many-to-many link tables should have the pair of id's to the table they link as the composite key.
It's a natural composite key which you already have to use (and make UNIQUE), so there is no point to generate a surrogate key for this.
I don't see why would you want to reference a many-to-many link table from any other table except the tables they link, but let's assume you have such a need.
In this case, you just reference the link table by the composite key.
This query:
CREATE TABLE a (id, data)
CREATE TABLE b (id, data)
CREATE TABLE ab (a_id, b_id, PRIMARY KEY (a_id, b_id))
CREATE TABLE business_rule (id, a_id, b_id, FOREIGN KEY (a_id, b_id) REFERENCES ab)
SELECT *
FROM business_rule br
JOIN a
ON a.id = br.a_id
is much more efficient than this one:
CREATE TABLE a (id, data)
CREATE TABLE b (id, data)
CREATE TABLE ab (id, a_id, b_id, PRIMARY KEY (id), UNIQUE KEY (a_id, b_id))
CREATE TABLE business_rule (id, ab_id, FOREIGN KEY (ab_id) REFERENCES ab)
SELECT *
FROM business_rule br
JOIN a_to_b ab
ON br.ab_id = ab.id
JOIN a
ON a.id = ab.a_id
, for obvious reasons.
Almost always yes. I generally default to including an identity field unless there's a compelling reason not to. I rarely encounter such reasons, and the cost of the identity field is minimal, so generally I include.
Only thing I can think of off the top of my head where I didn't was a highly specialized database that was being used more as a datastore than a relational database where the DBMS was being used for nearly every feature except significant relational modelling. (It was a high volume, high turnover data buffer thing.)
I'm a firm believer that natural keys are often far worse than artificial keys because you often have no control over whether they will change which can cause horrendous data integrity or performance problems.
However, there are some (very few) natural keys that make sense without being an identity field (two-letter state abbreviation comes to mind, it is extremely rare for these official type abbreviations to change.)
Any table which is a join table to model a many to many relationship probably also does not need an additional identity field. Making the two key fields together the primary key will work just fine.
Other than that I would, in general, add an identity field to most other tables unless given a compelling reason in that particular case not to. It is a bad practice to fail to create a primary key on a table or if you are using surrogate keys to fail to place a unique index on the other fields needed to guarantee uniqueness where possible (unless you really enjoy resolving duplicates).
Every table should have some set of field(s) that uniquely identify it. Whether or not there is a numeric identifier field separate from the data fields will depend on the domain you are attempting to model. Not all data easily falls into the 'single numeric id' paradigm, and as such it would be inappropriate to force it. Given that, a lot of data does easily fit in this paradigm and as such would call for such an identifier. There is no one answer to always do X in any programming environment, and this is another example.
If you have modelled, designed, normalised etc, then you will have no identity columns.
You will have identified natural and candidate keys for your tables.
You may decide on a surrogate key because of the physical architecture (eg narrow, numeric, strictly monotonically increasing), say, because using a nvarchar(100) column is not a good idea (still need unique constraint).
Or because of ideology: they appeal to OO developers I've found.
Ok, assume ID columns. As your db gets more complex, say several layers, how can you jon parent and grand-.child tables directly. You can't: you always need intermediate tables and well indexed PK-FL columns. With a composite key, it's all there for you...
Don't get me wrong: I use them. But I know why I use them...
Edit:
I'd be interested to collate "always ID"+"no stored procs" matches on one hand, with "use stored procs"+"IDs when they benefit" on the other...
No. Whenever you have a table with an artificial identity column, you also need to identify the natural primary key for the table and ensure that there is a unique constraint on that set of columns too so that you don't get two rows that are identical apart from the meaningless identity column by accident.
Adding an identity column is not cost free. There is an overhead in adding an unnecessary identity column to a table - typically 4 bytes per row of storage for the identity value, plus a whole extra index (which will probably weigh in at 8-12 bytes per row plus overhead). It also takes slightly to work out the most cost-effective query plan because there is an extra index per table. Granted, if the table is small and the machine is big, this overhead is not critical - but for the biggest systems, it matters.
Yes, for the vast majority of cases.
Edge cases or exceptions might be things like:
two-way join tables to model m:n relationships
temporary tables used for bulk-inserting huge amounts of data
But other than that, I think there is no good reason against having a primary key to uniquely identify each row in a table, and in my opinion, using an IDENTITY field is one of the best choices (I prefer surrogate keys over natural keys - they're more reliable, stable, never changing etc.).
Marc
I can't think of any drawback about having an ID field in each table. Providing your the type of your ID field provides enough space for your table to grow.
However, you don't necessarily need a single field to ensure the identity of your rows.
So no, a single ID field is not mandatory.
Primary and Foreign Keys can consist not only of one field, but of multiple fields. This is typical for tables implementing a N-N relationship.
You can perfectly have PRIMARY KEY (fa, fb) on your table:
CREATE TABLE t(fa INT , fb INT);
ALTER TABLE t ADD PRIMARY KEY(fa , fb);
Recognize the distinction between an Identity field and a key... Every table should have a key, to eliminate the data corruption of inadvertently entering multiple rows that represent the same 'entity'. If the only key a table has is a meaningless surrogate key, then this function is effectively missing.
otoh, No table 'needs' an identity, and certainly not every table benefits from one... Examples are: A table with a short and functional key, a table which does not have any other table referencing it through a foreign Key, or a table which is in a one to zero-or-one relationship with another table... none of these need an Identity
I'd say, if you can find a simple, natural key in your table (i.e. one column), use that as a key instead of an identity column.
I generally give every table some kind of unique identifier, whether it is natural or generated, because then I am guaranteed that every row is uniquely identified somehow.
Personally, I avoid IDENTITY (incrementing identity columns, like 1, 2, 3, 4) columns like the plague. They cause a lot of hassle, especially if you delete rows from that table. I use generated uniqueidentifiers instead if there is no natural key in the table.
Anyway, no idea if this is the accepted practice, just seems right to me. YMMV.
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)
I have my user table (pseudo sql, because I use an ORM and I must support several different DB types):
id: INTEGER, PK, AUTOINCREMENT
UUID : BINARY(16) (inserted by an update, it's a hash(id) )
I am currently using id for FK in all other tables.
However, in my REST API, I have to serve informations with the UUID, which causes a problem later to query.
Should I:
FK on the UUID instead?
just lookup id(UUID) each time (fast thanks to cache mechanism after a while)?
In general, it is better to use the auto-incremented id for the foreign key reference rather than some other combination of unique columns.
One important reason is that indexes on a single integer are more efficient than indexes on other column types -- if for no other reason than the index being smaller, so it occupies less disk and less memory. Also, there is additional overhead to storing the longer UUID in secondary tables.
This is not the only consideration. Another consideration is that you could change the UUID, if necessary, without changing the foreign key references. For instance, you may wake up one day and say "that id has to start with AAA". You can alter the table and update the table and be done with it -- or you could worry about foreign key references as well. Or, you might add an organization column and decide that the unique key is a combination of the UUID and organization. These operations are much harder/slower if the UUID is being used as a foreign key reference.
When you have composite primary keys (more than one column), using the auto-incremented id is an even better idea. In this case, using the id for joins prevents mistakes where one of the join conditions might be left out.
As you point out, looking up the UUID for a given id should be a fast operation with the correct indexes. There may be some borderline cases where you would not want to have an id, but in general, it is a good idea.
So I've seen several mentions of a surrogate key lately, and I'm not really sure what it is and how it differs from a primary key.
I always assumed that ID was my primary key in a table like this:
Users
ID, Guid
FirstName, Text
LastName, Text
SSN, Int
however, wikipedia defines a surrogate key as "A surrogate key in a database is a unique identifier for either an entity in the modeled world or an object in the database. The surrogate key is not derived from application data."
According to Wikipedia, it looks like ID is my surrogate key, and my primary key might be SSN+ID? Is this right? Is that a bad table design?
Assuming that table design is sound, would something like this be bad, for a table where the data didn't have anything unique about it?
LogEntry
ID, Guid
LogEntryID, Int [sql identity field +1 every time]
LogType, Int
Message, Text
No, your ID can be both a surrogate key (which just means it's not "derived from application data", e.g. an artificial key), and it should be your primary key, too.
The primary key is used to uniquely and safely identify any row in your table. It has to be stable, unique, and NOT NULL - an "artificial" ID usually has those properties.
I would normally recommend against using "natural" or real data for primary keys - are not REALLY 150% sure it's NEVER going to change?? The Swiss equivalent of the SSN for instance changes each time a woman marries (or gets divorced) - hardly an ideal candidate. And it's not guaranteed to be unique, either......
To spare yourself all that grief, just use a surrogate (artificial) ID that is system-defined, unique, and never changes and never has any application meaning (other than being your unique ID).
Scott Ambler has a pretty good article here which has a "glossary" of all the various keys and what they mean - you'll find natural, surrogate, primary key and a few more.
First, a Surrogate key is a key that is artificially generated within the database, as a unique value for each row in a table, and which has no dependency whatsoever on any other attribute in the table.
Now, the phrase Primary Key is a red herring. Whether a key is primary or an alternate doesn't mean anything. What matters is what the key is used for. Keys can serve two functions which are fundementally inconsistent with one another.
They are first and foremost there to ensure the integrity and consistency of your data! Each row in a table represents an instance of whatever entity that table is defined to hold data for. No Surrogate Key, by definition, can ever perform this function. Only a properly designed natural Key can do this. (If all you have is a surrogate key, you can always add another row with every other attributes exactly identical to an existing row, as long as you give it a different surrogate key value)
Secondly they are there to serve as references (pointers) for the foreign Keys in other tables which are children entities of an entity in the table with the Primary Key. A Natural Key, (especially if it is a composite of multiple attributes) is not a good choice for this function because it would mean tha that A) the foreign keys in all the child tables would also have to be composite keys, making them very wide, and thereby decreasing performance of all constraint operations and of SQL Joins. and B) If the value of the key changed in the main table, you would be required to do cascading updates on every table where the value was represented as a FK.
So the answer is simple... Always (wherever you care about data integrity/consistency) use a natural key and, where necessary, use both! When the natural key is a composite, or long, or not stable enough, add an alternate Surrogate key (as auto-incrementing integer for example) for use as targets of FKs in child tables. But at the risk of losing data consistency of your table, DO NOT remove the natural key from the main table.
To make this crystal clear let's make an example.
Say you have a table with Bank accounts in it... A natural Key might be the Bank Routing Number and the Account Number at the bank. To avoid using this twin composite key in every transaction record in the transactions table you might decide to put an artificially generated surrogate key on the BankAccount table which is just an integer. But you better keep the natural Key! If you didn't, if you did not also have the composite natural key, you could quite easily end up with two rows in the table as follows
id BankRoutingNumber BankAccountNumber BankBalance
1 12345678932154 9876543210123 $123.12
2 12345678932154 9876543210123 ($3,291.62)
Now, which one is right?
To marc from comments below, What good does it do you to be able to "identify the row"?? No good at all, it seems to me, because what we need to be able to identify is which bank account the row represents! Identifying the row is only important for internal database technical functions, like joins in queries, or for FK constraint operations, which, if/when they are necessary, should be using a surrogate key anyway, not the natural key.
You are right in that a poor choice of a natural key, or sometimes even the best available choice of a natural key, may not be truly unique, or guaranteed to prevent duplicates. But any choice is better than no choice, as it will at least prevent duplicate rows for the same values in the attributes chosen as the natural key. These issues can be kept to a minimum by the appropriate choice of key attributes, but sometimees they are unavoidable and must be dealt with. But it is still better to do so than to allow incorrect inaccurate or redundant data into the database.
As to "ease of use" If all you are using the natural key for is to constrain the insertion of duplicate rows, and you are using another, surrogate, key as the target for FK constraints, I do not see any ease of use issues of concern.
Wow, you opened a can of worms with this question. Database purists will tell you never to use surrogate keys (like you have above). On the other hand, surrogate keys can have some tremendous benefits. I use them all the time.
In SQL Server, a surrogate key is typically an auto-increment Identity value that SQL Server generates for you. It has NO relationship to the actual data stored in the table. The opposite of this is a Natural key. An example might be Social Security number. This does have a relationship to the data stored in the table. There are benefits to natural keys, but, IMO, the benefits to using surrogate keys outweigh natural keys.
I noticed in your example, you have a GUID for a primary key. You generally want to stay away from GUIDS as primary keys. The are big, bulky and can often be inserted into your database in a random way, causing major fragmentation.
Randy
The reason that database purists get all up in arms about surrogate keys is because, if used improperly, they can allow data duplication, which is one of the evils that good database design is meant to banish.
For instance, suppose that I had a table of email addresses for a mailing list. I would want them to be unique, right? There's no point in having 2, 3, or n entries of the same email address. If I use email_address as my primary key ( which is a natural key -- it exists as data independently of the database structure you've created ), this will guarantee that I will never have a duplicate email address in my mailing list.
However, if I have a field called id as a surrogate key, then I can have any number of duplicate email addresses. This becomes bad if there are then 10 rows of the same email address, all with conflicting subscription information in other columns. Which one is correct, if any? There's no way to tell! After that point, your data integrity is borked. There's no way to fix the data but to go through the records one by one, asking people what subscription information is really correct, etc.
The reason why non-purists want it is because it makes it easy to use standardized code, because you can rely on refering to a single database row with an integer value. If you had a natural key of, say, the set ( client_id, email, category_id ), the programmer is going to hate coding around this instance! It kind of breaks the encapsulation of class-based coding, because it requires the programmer to have deep knowledge of table structure, and a delete method may have different code for each table. Yuck!
So obviously this example is over-simplified, but it illustrates the point.
Users Table
Using a Guid as a primary key for your Users table is perfect.
LogEntry table
Unless you plan to expose your LogEntry data to an external system or merge it with another database, I would simply use an incrementing int rather than a Guid as the primary key. It's easier to work with and will use slightly less space, which could be significant in a huge log stretching several years.
The primary key is whatever you make it. Whatever you define as the primary key is the primary key. Usually its an integer ID field.
The surrogate key is also this ID field. Its a surrogate for the natural key, which defines uniqueness in terms of your application data.
The idea behind having an integer ID as the primary key (even it doesnt really mean anything) is for indexing purposes. You would then probably define a natural key as a unique constraint on your table. This way you get the best of both worlds. Fast indexing with your ID field and each row still maintains its natural uniqueness.
That said, some people swear by just using a natural key.
There are actually three kinds of keys to talk about. The primary key is what is used to uniquely identify every row in a table. The surrogate key is an artificial key that is created with that property. A natural key is a primary key which is derived from the actual real life data.
In some cases the natural key may be unwieldy so a surrogate key may be created to be used as a foreign key, etc. For example, in a log or diary the PK might be the date, time, and the full text of the entry (if it is possible to add two entries at the exact same time). Obviously it would be a bad idea to use all of that every time that you wanted to identify a row, so you might make a "log id". It might be a sequential number (the most common) or it might be the date plus a sequential number (like 20091222001) or it might be something else. Some natural keys may work well as a primary key though, such as vehicle VIN numbers, student ID numbers (if they are not reused), or in the case of joining tables the PKs of the two tables being joined.
This is just an overview of table key selection. There's a lot to consider, although in most shops you'll find that they go with, "add an identity column to every table and that's our primary key". You then get all of the problems that go with that.
In your case I think that a LogEntryID for your log items seems reasonable. Is the ID an FK to the Users table? If not then I might question having both the ID and the LogEntryID in the same table as they are redundant. If it is, then I would change the name to user_id or something similar.
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.
Say you have a Many-Many table between Artists and Fans. When it comes to designing the table, do you design the table like such:
ArtistFans
ArtistFanID (PK)
ArtistID (FK)
UserID (FK)
(ArtistID and UserID will then be contrained with a Unique Constraint
to prevent duplicate data)
Or do you build use a compound PK for the two relevant fields:
ArtistFans
ArtistID (PK)
UserID (PK)
(The need for the separate unique constraint is removed because of the
compound PK)
Are there are any advantages (maybe indexing?) for using the former schema?
ArtistFans
ArtistID (PK)
UserID (PK)
The use of an auto incremental PK has no advantages here, even if the parent tables have them.
I'd also create a "reverse PK" index automatically on (UserID, ArtistID) too: you will need it because you'll query the table by both columns.
Autonumber/ID columns have their place. You'd choose them to improve certain things after the normalisation process based on the physical platform. But not for link tables: if your braindead ORM insists, then change ORMs...
Edit, Oct 2012
It's important to note that you'd still need unique (UserID, ArtistID) and (ArtistID, UserID) indexes. Adding an auto increments just uses more space (in memory, not just on disk) that shouldn't be used
Assuming that you're already a devotee of the surrogate key (you're in good company), there's a case to be made for going all the way.
A key point that is sometimes forgotten is that relationships themselves can have properties. Often it's not enough to state that two things are related; you might have to describe the nature of that relationship. In other words, there's nothing special about a relationship table that says it can only have two columns.
If there's nothing special about these tables, why not treat it like every other table and use a surrogate key? If you do end up having to add properties to the table, you'll thank your lucky presentation layers that you don't have to pass around a compound key just to modify those properties.
I wouldn't even call this a rule of thumb, more of a something-to-consider. In my experience, some slim majority of relationships end up carrying around additional data, essentially becoming entities in themselves, worthy of a surrogate key.
The rub is that adding these keys after the fact can be a pain. Whether the cost of the additional column and index is worth the value of preempting this headache, that really depends on the project.
As for me, once bitten, twice shy – I go for the surrogate key out of the gate.
Even if you create an identity column, it doesn't have to be the primary key.
ArtistFans
ArtistFanId
ArtistId (PK)
UserId (PK)
Identity columns can be useful to relate this relation to other relations. For example, if there was a creator table which specified the person who created the artist-user relation, it could have a foreign key on ArtistFanId, instead of the composite ArtistId+UserId primary key.
Also, identity columns are required (or greatly improve the operation of) certain ORM packages.
I cannot think of any reason to use the first form you list. The compound primary key is fine, and having a separate, artificial primary key (along with the unique contraint you need on the foreign keys) will just take more time to compute and space to store.
The standard way is to use the composite primary key. Adding in a separate autoincrement key is just creating a substitute that is already there using what you have. Proper database normalization patterns would look down on using the autoincrement.
Funny how all answers favor variant 2, so I have to dissent and argue for variant 1 ;)
To answer the question in the title: no, you don't need it. But...
Having an auto-incremental or identity column in every table simplifies your data model so that you know that each of your tables always has a single PK column.
As a consequence, every relation (foreign key) from one table to another always consists of a single column for each table.
Further, if you happen to write some application framework for forms, lists, reports, logging etc you only have to deal with tables with a single PK column, which simplifies the complexity of your framework.
Also, an additional id PK column does not cost you very much in terms of disk space (except for billion-record-plus tables).
Of course, I need to mention one downside: in a grandparent-parent-child relation, child will lose its grandparent information and require a JOIN to retrieve it.
In my opinion, in pure SQL id column is not necessary and should not be used. But for ORM frameworks such as Hibernate, managing many-to-many relations is not simple with compound keys etc., especially if join table have extra columns.
So if I am going to use a ORM framework on the db, I prefer putting an auto-increment id column to that table and a unique constraint to the referencing columns together. And of course, not-null constraint if it is required.
Then I treat the table just like any other table in my project.