Re: A real world example

"Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message news:1iQEg.8919$1f6.2533_at_newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

> I think that there is a fundamental difference. Over the years I've
worked
> with many databases that used surrogates and many that didn't. In all
cases
> where surrogates were used, it was always assumed that surrogates could
not
> change.

PMFJI. I'm offering a point of view that doesn't necessarily conform to either yours or Bob's.

I also have worked with many databases, some that used surrogates, and some that
used so called "natural" keys.

The distinction in my mind, is whether "we" control the key or whether "they" control the key.
If "we" control the key, then it will only get screwed up if "we" screw it up, and "we" aren't going to do that, are "we"?

If, on the other hand, "they" control the key, then sooner or later they are going to screw it up. That's the way "they" are. If "they" screw it up, and "we" have a problem, then "we" have an intractable situation.

I can give you real world examples of exactly this happening, but this comment is getting long enough.

> That meant less application code that was more reliable, more
> scalable, and in most cases, performed better.

This, and most of the rest of what you wrote is a natural consequence of the fact that "we" can rely on "ourselves" more than we can rely on "them".

I'm netither flaming nor agreeing with what you wrote. Received on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 13:17:23 CEST