Re: counting query

["Joris Dobbelsteen" <Joris(at)familiedobbelsteen(dot)nl>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Douglas McNaught [mailto:doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org] 
>Sent: zondag 28 januari 2007 16:29
>To: Joris Dobbelsteen
>Cc: John Meyer; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] counting query
>
>"Joris Dobbelsteen" <Joris(at)familiedobbelsteen(dot)nl> writes:
>
>> What would have been better without surrogate keys all-over:
>> * Easier to write complex queries with much fewer tables to 
>be queried.
>> * Much faster query performance, as fewer tables need to be 
>referenced.
>> * Better integrity enforcement with simple foreign key constraints.
>
>Not this debeta again.  ;)
>
>Surrugate vs natural keys shouldn't make a difference in how 
>many yables you have--they depends on the degree of 
>normalization.  Sounds like you denormalized your database and 
>happened to eliminate surrogate keys at the same time.  Using 
>that to say "surrogate keys are bad" is kind of misleading.

I have perhaps formulated it quite extreme. It was not intended to take
such a extreme stance. I appologize if it will lead to such a
discussion. I'll try to do it a bit more careful next time.

My point is only, be careful with surrogate keys and try not the use
them for everything. In my sole opinion I see them getting used too
much. But then again, what is good and wrong will always be subjective.

So perhaps <quote>What would have been better without surrogate keys
all-over<quote> should have been "My database where I extremely overdid
it with surrogate keys".

Lets leave it to this.

- Joris