On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Mike Christensen <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a table that stores a user ID and a subscription type, and this is > really all it needs to store and any pair of values will always be unique. > In fact, I think this pair should be the primary key on the table. However, > I'm using Castle ActiveRecord which says at: > > http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/documentation/v1rc1/usersguide/pks.html#CompositePK > > And I quote: > > Quick Note: Composite keys are highly discouraged. Use only when you have no > other alternative. > > I get the feeling they're discouraged from a SQL point of view, but it > doesn't actually say why anywhere. Is there any good reason to avoid using > composite keys on a table? Why waste the space of an extra key if you don't > have to? Thanks! >From reading that, they're discouraged from a hibernate point of view. I've never had a problem with composite keys in SQL myself. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
