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.
Related
I am working on a voting table design using Postgres 9.5 (but maybe the question itself is applicable to sql in general). My vote table should be like:
-------------------------
object | user | timestamp
-------------------------
Where object and user are foreign keys to the ids corresponding to their own tables. I have a problem identifying what actually should be a primary key.
I thought at first to make a primary_key(object, user) but since I use django as a server, it just doesn't support multicolumn primary key, I am not sure either about the performance since I may access a row using only one of those 2 columns (i.e. object or user), but the advantage this idea works automatically as a unique key since the same user shouldn't vote twice for the same object. And I don't need any additional indexes.
The other idea is to introduce an auto or serial id field, I really don't think of any advantage of using this approach especially when the table gets bigger. I need also to introduce at least a unique_key(object, user) which adds to the computational complexity and data storage. Not even sure about the performance when I select using one of the 2 columns, may be I need also 2 additional indexes for the object and user to accelerate the select operation since I need this heavily.
Is there something I am missing here? or is there a better idea?
django themselves recognise that the "natural primary key" in this case is not supported. So your gut feeling is right, but django don't support it.
https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/MultipleColumnPrimaryKeys
Relational database designs use a set of columns as the primary key
for a table. When this set includes more than one column, it is known
as a “composite” or “compound” primary key. (For more on the
terminology, here is an article discussing database keys).
Currently Django models only support a single column in this set,
denying many designs where the natural primary key of a table is
multiple columns. Django currently can't work with these schemas; they
must instead introduce a redundant single-column key (a “surrogate”
key), forcing applications to make arbitrary and otherwise-unnecessary
choices about which key to use for the table in any given instance.
I'm less failure with django personally. One option might be to form an extra column as a primary key by concatenating object and user.
Remember that there is nothing special about a primary key. You can always add a UNIQUE KEY on the pair of columns and make them both NOT NULL.
You might find this example useful.
https://thecuriousfrequency.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/make-primary-key-with-two-or-more-field-in-django/
The correct solution woulf be to have a PRIMARY KEY (object, user) and an additional index on user. The primary key index can also be used for searches for object alone.
Form a database point of view, your problem is that you use an inadequate middleware if it does not support composite primary keys.
You'll probably have to introduce an artificial primary key constraint and in addition have a unique constraint on (object, user) and an index on user, but your gut feelings that that is not the best solution from a database perspective are absolutely true.
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.
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.
Is it ok to define tables primary key with 2 foreign key column that in combination must be unique? And thus not add a new id column (Guid or int)?
Is there a negative to this?
Yes, it's completely OK. Why not? The downside of composite primary keys is that it can be long and it might be harder to identify a single row uniquely from the application perspective. However, for a couple integer columns (specially in junction tables), it's a good practice.
Natural versus Artificial primary keys is one of those issues that gets widely debated and IMHO the discussion only seems to see the positions harden.
In my opinion both work so long as the developer knows how to avoid the downside of both. A natural primary key (whether composite or single column) more nearly ensures that duplicate rows are not added to the DB. Whereas with artificial primary keys it is necessary to first check the record is unique (as opposed to the primary key, which being artificial will always be unique). One effective way to achieve this is to have a unique or candidate index on the fields that make the record unique (e.g. the fields that make a candidate for a primary key)
Meanwhile an artificial primary key makes for easy joining. Relations can be made with a single field to single field join. With a composite key the writer of the SQL statement must know how many fields to include in the join.
For some definitions of "ok", yes. As long as you never intend to add additional fields to this intersection table, that'll be fine. However, if you intend to have more fields, it's good practice to have an ID field. It's still fine, come to think of it, but can be more awkward.
Unless, of course, disk space is at a serious premium!
If you look into any database textbook, you will find such tables en masse. This is the default way to define n-to-m relations. For example:
article = (id, title, text)
author = (id, name)
article_author = (article_id, author_id)
Semantically, article_author is not a new entity so you might refrain from defining it as the primary key and instead create it as a normal index with UNIQUE constraint.
Yes, I agree, with "some definition of OK" it is OK. But the moment you decide to reference this composite primary key from somewhere (i.e. move it to a foreign key), it quickly bocomes NG (Not Good).