In my database I have a list of users with information about them, and I also have a feature which allows a user to add other users to a shortlist. My user information is stored in one table with a primary key of the user id, and I have another table for the shortlist. The shortlist table is designed so that it has two columns and is basically just a list of pairs of names. So to find the shortlist for a particular user you retrieve all names from the second column where the id in the first column is a particular value.
The issue is that according to many sources such as this Should each and every table have a primary key? you should have a primary key in every table of the database.
According to this source http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_primarykey.asp - a primary key in one which uniquely identifies an entry in a database. So my question is:
What is wrong with the table in my database? Why does it need a primary key?
How should I give it a primary key? Just create a new auto-incrementing column so that each entry has a unique id? There doesn't seem much point for this. Or would I somehow encapsulate the multiple entries that represent a shortlist into another entity in another table and link that in? I'm really confused.
If the rows are unique, you can have a two-column primary key, although maybe that's database dependent. Here's an example:
CREATE TABLE my_table
(
col_1 int NOT NULL,
col_2 varchar(255) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT pk_cols12 PRIMARY KEY (col_1,col_2)
)
If you already have the table, the example would be:
ALTER TABLE my_table
ADD CONSTRAINT pk_cols12 PRIMARY KEY (col_1,col_2)
Primary keys must identify each record uniquely and as it was mentioned before, primary keys can consist of multiple attributes (1 or more columns). First, I'd recommend making sure each record is really unique in your table. Secondly, as I understand you left the table without primary key and that's disallowed so yes, you will need to set the key for it.
In this particular case, there is no purpose in same pair of user IDs being stored more than once in the shortlist table. After all, that table models a set, and an element is either in the set or isn't. Having an element "twice" in the set makes no sense1. To prevent that, create a composite key, consisting of these two user ID fields.
Whether this composite key will also be primary, or you'll have another key (that would act as surrogate primary key) is another matter, but either way you'll need this composite key.
Please note that under databases that support clustering (aka. index-organized tables), PK is often also a clustering key, which may have significant repercussions on performance.
1 Unlike in mutiset.
A table with duplicate rows is not an adequate representation of a relation. It's a bag of rows, not a set of rows. If you let this happen, you'll eventually find that your counts will be off, your sums will be off, and your averages will be off. In short, you'll get confusing errors out of your data when you go to use it.
Declaring a primary key is a convenient way of preventing duplicate rows from getting into the database, even if one of the application programs makes a mistake. The index you obtain is a side effect.
Foreign key references to a single row in a table could be made by referencing any candidate key. However, it's much more convenient if you declare one of those candidate keys as a primary key, and then make all foreign key references refer to the primary key. It's just careful data management.
The one-to-one correspondence between entities in the real world and corresponding rows in the table for that entity is beyond the realm of the DBMS. It's up to your applications and even your data providers to maintain that correspondence by not inventing new rows for existing entities and not letting some new entities slip through the cracks.
Well since you are asking, it's good practice but in a few instances (no joins needed to the data) it may not be absolutely required. The biggest problem though is you never really know if requirements will change and so you really want one now so you aren't adding one to a 10m record table after the fact.....
In addition to a primary key (which can span multiple columns btw) I think it is good practice to have a secondary candidate key which is a single field. This makes joins easier.
First some theory. You may remember the definition of a function from HS or college algebra is that y = f(x) where f is a function if and only if for every x there is exactly one y. In this case, in relational math we would say that y is functionally dependent on x on this case.
The same is true of your data. Suppose we are storing check numbers, checking account numbers, and amounts. Assuming that we may have several checking accounts and that for each checking account duplicate check numbers are not allowed, then amount is functionally dependent on (account, check_number). In general you want to store data together which is functionally dependent on the same thing, with no transitive dependencies. A primary key will typically be the functional dependency you specify as the primary one. This then identifies the rest of the data in the row (because it is tied to that identifier). Think of this as the natural primary key. Where possible (i.e. not using MySQL) I like to declare the primary key to be the natural one, even if it spans across columns. This gets complicated sometimes where you may have multiple interchangeable candidate keys. For example, consider:
CREATE TABLE country (
id serial not null unique,
name text primary key,
short_name text not null unique
);
This table really could have any column be the primary key. All three are perfectly acceptable candidate keys. Suppose we have a country record (232, 'United States', 'US'). Each of these fields uniquely identifies the record so if we know one we can know the others. Each one could be defined as the primary key.
I also recommend having a second, artificial candidate key which is just a machine identifier used for linking for joins. In the above example country.id does this. This can be useful for linking other records to the country table.
An exception to needing a candidate key might be where duplicate records really are possible. For example, suppose we are tracking invoices. We may have a case where someone is invoiced independently for two items with one showing on each of two line items. These could be identical. In this case you probably want to add an artificial primary key because it allows you to join things to that record later. You might not have a need to do so now but you may in the future!
Create a composite primary key.
To read more about what a composite primary key is, visit
http://www.relationaldbdesign.com/relational-database-analysis/module2/concatenated-primary-keys.php
Related
Making a primary key in a table in database is fine. Making a Composite Primary is also fine. But why cant I have 2 primary keys in a table? What kind of problems may occur if we have 2 primary keys.
Suppose I have a Students table. I don't want Roll No. and Names of each student to be unique. Then why can't I create 2 primary keys in a table? I don't see any logical problem in it now. But definitely I am missing a serious issue that's the reason it does not exist.
I am new in databases, so don't have much idea. It may also create a technical issue rather. Will be happy if someone can educate me on this.
Thanks.
You can create a UNIQUE constraint for both columns UNIQUE(roll,name).
The PK is unique by definition, cause it is used to identify a row from the others, for example, when a foreign key references that table, it is referencing the PK.
If you need another column to 'act' like a PK, give it the attributes unique and not null.
Well, this is simply by definition. There can not be two "primary" conditions, just like there can not be two "latest" versions.
Every table can contain more than one unique keys, but if you decide to have a primary key, this is just one of these unique keys, the "one" you deem the "most important", which identifies every record uniquely.
If you have a table and come to the conclusion that your primary key does not uniquely identify each record (also meaning that there can't be two records with the same values for the primary key), you have chosen the wrong primary key, as by definition, the fields of the primary key must uniquely define each record.
That, however, does not mean there can be no other combination of fields uniquely identifying the record! This is where a second feature kicks in: referential integrity.
You can "link" tables using their primary key. For example: If you have a Customer table and an Orders table, where the Customers table has a primary key on the customer number and the Orders table has a primary key on the order number and the customer number, that means:
Every customer can be identified uniquely by his customer number
Every order is uniquely identified by the order number and the customer number
You can then link the two tables on the customer number. The DB system then ensures several things, among which is the fact that you can not remove a customer who has orders in your database without first removing the orders. Otherwise, you would have orders without being able to find out the customer data, which would violate your database's referential integrity.
If you had two primary keys, the system would not know on which to ensure referential integrity, so you'd have to tell the system which key to use - which would make one of the primary keys more important, which would make it the "primary key" (!) of the primary keys.
You can have multiple candidate keys in a table but by convention only one key per table is called "primary". That's just a convention though and it doesn't make any real difference to the function of the keys. A primary key is no different to any other candidate key. If you find it convenient to call more than one key "primary" then I suggest you do so. In my opinion (I'm not the only one) the idea of designating a "primary" key at all is essentially an outdated concept of very little importance in database design.
You might be interested to know that early papers on the relational database model (e.g. by E.F.Codd, the relational model's inventor) actually used the term "primary key" to describe all the keys of a relation and not just one. So there is a perfectly good precedent for multiple primary keys per table. The idea of designating exactly one primary key is more recent and probably came into common use through the popularity of ER modelling techniques.
Create an unique index on the 2nd attribute (Names), it's almost the same as primary key with another name.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_key):
A table can have at most one primary key, but more than one unique
key. A primary key is a combination of columns which uniquely specify
a row. It is a special case of unique keys. One difference is that
primary keys have an implicit NOT NULL constraint while unique keys do
not. Thus, the values in unique key columns may or may not be NULL,
and in fact such a column may contain at most one NULL fields.
Another difference is that primary keys must be defined using another
syntax.
Should I always have a primary key in my database tables?
Let's take the SO tagging. You can see the tag in any revision, its likely to be in a tag_rev table with the postID and revision number. Would I need a PK for that?
Also since it is in a rev table and not currently use the tags should be a blob of tagIDs instead of multiple entries of multiple post_id tagid pair?
A table should have a primary key so that you could identify each row uniquely with it.
Technically, you can have tables without a primary key, but you'll be breaking good database design rules.
You should strive to have a primary key in any non-trivial table where you're likely to want to access (or update or delete) individual records by that key. Primary keys can consist of multiple columns, and formally speaking, will be the shortest available superkey; that is, the shortest available group of columns which, together, uniquely identify any row.
I don't know what the Stack Overflow database schema looks like (and from some of the things I've read on Jeff's blog, I don't want to), but in the situation you describe, it's entirely possible there is a primary key across the post identifier, revision number and tag value; certainly, that would be the shortest (and only) superkey available.
With regards to your second point, while it may be reasonable to argue in favour of aggregating values in archive tables, it does go against the principle that each row/column intersection in a table ought to contain one single value. While it may slightly simplify development, there is no reason you can't keep to a normalised table with versioned metadata, even for something as trivial as tags.
I tend to agree that most tables should have a primary key. I can only think of two times where it doesn't make sense to do it.
If you have a table that relates keys to other keys. For example, to relate a user_id to an answer_id, that table wouldn't need a primary key.
A logging table, whose only real purpose is to create an audit trail.
Basically, if you are writing a table that may ever need to be referenced in a foreign key relationship then a primary key is important, and if you can't be positive it won't be, then just add the PK. :)
See this related question about whether an integer primary key is required. One of the answers uses tagging as an example:
Are there any good reasons to have a database table without an integer primary key
For more discussion of tagging and keys, see this question:
Id for tags in tag systems
From MySQL 5.5 Reference Manual section 13.1.17:
If you do not have a PRIMARY KEY and an application asks for the PRIMARY KEY in your tables, MySQL returns the first UNIQUE index that has no NULL columns as the PRIMARY KEY.
So, technically, the answer is no. However, as others have stated, in most cases it is quite useful.
I firmly believe every table should have a way to uniquely identify a record. For 99% of the tables, this is a primary key. For the rest you may get away with a unique index (I'm thinking one column look up type tables here). Any time I have a had to work with a table without a way to uniquely identify records, there has been trouble.
I also believe if you are using surrogate keys as your PK, you should, where at all possible, have a separate unique index on whatever combination of fields make up the natural key. I realize there are all too many times when you don't have a true natural key (names are not unique or what makes something unique might be spread across several parentchild tables), but if you do have one, please please please make sure it has a unique index or is created as the PK.
If there is no PK, how will you update or delete a single row ? It would be impossible ! To be honest I have used a few times tables without PK, for instance to store activity logs, but even in this case it is advisable to have one because the timestamps could not be granular enough. Temporary tables is another example. But according to relational theory the PK is mandatory.
it is good to have keys and relationships . Helps a lot. however if your app is good enough to handle the relationships then you could possibly skip the keys ( although i recommend that you have them )
Since I use Subsonic, I always create a primary key for all of my tables. Many DB Abstraction libraries require a primary key to work.
Note: that doesn't answer the "Grand Unified Theory" tone of your question, but I'm just saying that in practice, sometimes you MUST make a primary key for every table.
If it's a join table then I wouldn't say that you need a primary key. Suppose, for example, that you have tables PERSONS, SICKPEOPLE, and ILLNESSES. The ILLNESSES table has things like flu, cold, etc., each with a primary key. PERSONS has the usual stuff about people, each also with a primary key. The SICKPEOPLE table only has people in it who are sick, and it has two columns, PERSONID and ILLNESSID, foreign keys back to their respective tables, and no primary key. The PERSONS and ILLNESSES tables contain entities and entities get primary keys. The entries in the SICKPEOPLE table aren't entities and don't get primary keys.
Databases don't have keys, per se, but their constituent tables might. I assume you mean that, but just in case...
Anyway, tables with a large number of rows should absolutely have primary keys; tables with only a few rows don't need them, necessarily, though they don't hurt. It depends upon the usage and the size of the table. Purists will put primary keys in every table. This is not wrong; and neither is omitting PKs in small tables.
Edited to add a link to my blog entry on this question, in which I discuss a case in which database administration staff did not consider it necessary to include a primary key in a particular table. I think this illustrates my point adequately.
Cyberherbalist's Blog Post on Primary Keys
Although I'm guilty of this crime, it seems to me there can't be any good reason for a table to not have an identity field primary key.
Pros:
- whether you want to or not, you can now uniquely identify every row in your table which previously you could not do
- you can't do sql replication without a primary key on your table
Cons:
- an extra 32 bits for each row of your table
Consider for example the case where you need to store user settings in a table in your database. You have a column for the setting name and a column for the setting value. No primary key is necessary, but having an integer identity column and using it as your primary key seems like a best practice for any table you ever create.
Are there other reasons besides size that every table shouldn't just have an integer identity field?
Sure, an example in a single-database solution is if you have a table of countries, it probably makes more sense to use the ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country code as the primary key as this is an international standard, and makes queries much more readable (e.g. CountryCode = 'GB' as opposed to CountryCode = 28). A similar argument could be applied to ISO 4217 currency codes.
In a SQL Server database solution using replication, a UNIQUEIDENTIFIER key would make more sense as GUIDs are required for some types of replication (and also make it much easier to avoid key conflicts if there are multiple source databases!).
The most clear example of a table that doesn't need a surrogate key is a many-to-many relation:
CREATE TABLE Authorship (
author_id INT NOT NULL,
book_id INT NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (author_id, book_id),
FOREIGN KEY (author_id) REFERENCES Authors (author_id),
FOREIGN KEY (book_id) REFERENCES Books (book_id)
);
I also prefer a natural key when I design a tagging system:
CREATE TABLE Tags (
tag VARCHAR(20) PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE ArticlesTagged (
article_id INT NOT NULL,
tag VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (article_id, tag),
FOREIGN KEY (article_id) REFERENCES Articles (article_id),
FOREIGN KEY (tag) REFERENCES Tags (tag)
);
This has some advantages over using a surrogate "tag_id" key:
You can ensure tags are unique, without adding a superfluous UNIQUE constraint.
You prevent two distinct tags from having the exact same spelling.
Dependent tables that reference the tag already have the tag text; they don't need to join to Tags to get the text.
Every table should have a primary key. It doesn't matter if it's an integer, GUID, or the "setting name" column. The type depends on the requirements of the application. Ideally, if you are going to join the table to another, it would be best to use a GUID or integer as your primary key.
Yes, there are good reasons. You can have semantically meaningful true keys, rather than articificial identity keys. Also, it is not a good idea to have a seperate autoincrementing primary key for a Many-Many table. There are some reasons you might want to choose a GUID.
That being said, I typically use autoincrementing 64bit integers for primary keys.
Every table should have a primary key. But it doesn't need to be a single field identifier. Take for example in a finance system, you may have the primary key on a journal table being the Journal ID and Line No. This will produce a unique combination for each row (and the Journal ID will be a primary key in its own table)
Your primary key needs to be defined on how you are going to link the table to other tables.
I don't think every table needs a primary key. Sometimes you only want to "connect" the contents of two tables - via their primary key.
So you have a table like users and one table like groups (each with primary keys) and you have a third table called users_groups with only two colums (user and group) where users and groups are connected with each other.
For example a row with user = 3 and group = 6 would link the user with primary key 3 to the group with primary key 6.
One reason not to have primary key defined as identity is having primary key defined as GUIDs or populated with externally generated values.
In general, every table that is semantically meaningful by itself should have primary key and such key should have no semantic meaning. A join table that realizes many-to-many relationship is not meaningful by itself and so it doesn't need such primary key (it already has one via its values).
To be a properly normalised table, each row should only have a single identifiable key. Many tables will already have natural keys, such a unique invoice number. I agree, especially with storage being so cheap, there is little overhead in having an autonumber/identity key on all tables, but in this instance which is the real key.
Another area where I personally don't use this approach if for reference data, where typically we have a Description and a Value
Code, Description
'L', 'Live'
'O', 'Old'
'P', 'Pending'
In this situation making code a primary key ensures no duplicates, and is more human readable.
The key difference (sorry) between a natural primary key and a surrogate primary key is that the value of the natural key contains information whereas the value of a surrogate key doesn't.
Why is this important? Well a natural primary key is by definition guaranteed to be unique, but its value is not usually guaranteed to stay the same. When it changes, you have to update it in multiple places.
A surrogate key's value has no real meaning and simply serves to identify that row, so it never needs to be changed. It is a feature of the model rather than the domain itself.
So the only place I would say a surrogate key isn't appropriate is in an association table which only contains columns referring to rows in other tables (most many-to-many relations). The only information this table carries is the association between two (or more) rows, and it already consists solely of surrogate key values. In this case I would choose a composite primary key.
If such a table had bag semantics, or carried additional information about the association, I would add a surrogate key.
A primary key is ALWAYS a good idea. It allows for very fast and easy joining of tables. It aides external tools that can read system tables to make join allowing less skilled people to create their own queries by drag-and-drop. It also makes the implementation of referential integrity a breeze and that is a good idea from the get go.
I know for sure that some very smart people working for web giants do this. While I don't know why their own reasons, I know 2 cases where PK-less tables make sense:
Importing data. The table is temporary. Insertions and whole table scans need to be as fast as possible. Also, we need to accept duplicate records. Later we will clean the data, but the import process needs to work.
Analytics in a DBMS. Identifying a row is not useful - if we need to do it, it is not analytics. We just need a non-relational, redundant, horrible blob that looks like a table. We will build summary tables or materialized views by writing proper SQL queries.
Note that these cases have good reasons to be non-relational. But normally your tables should be relational, so... yes, they need a primary key.
I'm currently designing a brand new database. In school, we always learned to put a primary key in each table.
I read a lot of articles/discussions/newsgroups posts saying that it's better to use unique constraint (aka unique index for some db) instead of PK.
What's your point of view?
A Primary Key is really just a candidate key that does not allow for NULL. As such, in SQL terms - it's no different than any other unique key.
However, for our non-theoretical RDBMS's, you should have a Primary Key - I've never heard it argued otherwise. If that Primary Key is a surrogate key, then you should also have unique constraints on the natural key(s).
The important bit to walk away with is that you should have unique constraints on all the candidate (whether natural or surrogate) keys. You should then pick the one that is easiest to reference in a Foreign Key to be your Primary Key*.
You should also have a clustered index*. this could be your Primary Key, or a natural key - but it's not required to be either. You should pick your clustered index based on query usage of the table. When in doubt, the Primary Key is not a bad first choice.
Though it's technically only required to refer to a unique key in a foreign key relationship, it's accepted standard practice to greatly favor the primary key. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some RDBMS only allow primary key references.
Edit: It's been pointed out that Oracle's term of "clustered table" and "clustered index" are different than Sql Server. The equivalent of what I'm speaking of in Oracle-ese is an Index Ordered Table and it is recommended for OLTP tables - which, I think, would be the main focus of SO questions. I assume if you're responsible for a large OLAP data warehouse, you should already have your own opinions on database design and optimization.
Can you provide references to these articles?
I see no reason to change the tried and true methods. After all, Primary Keys are a fundamental design feature of relational databases.
Using UNIQUE to serve the same purpose sounds really hackish to me. What is their rationale?
Edit: My attention just got drawn back to this old answer. Perhaps the discussion that you read regarding PK vs. UNIQUE dealt with people making something a PK for the sole purpose of enforcing uniqueness on it. The answer to this is, If it IS a key, then make it key, otherwise make it UNIQUE.
A primary key is just a candidate key (unique constraint) singled out for special treatment (automatic creation of indexes, etc).
I expect that the folks who argue against them see no reason to treat one key differently than another. That's where I stand.
[Edit] Apparently I can't comment even on my own answer without 50 points.
#chris: I don't think there's any harm. "Primary Key" is really just syntactic sugar. I use them all the time, but I certainly don't think they're required. A unique key is required, yes, but not necessarily a Primary Key.
It would be very rare denormalization that would make you want to have a table without a primary key. Primary keys have unique constraints automatically just by their nature as the PK.
A unique constraint would be used when you want to guarantee uniqueness in a column in ADDITION to the primary key.
The rule of always have a PK is a good one.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191166.aspx
You should always have a primary key.
However I suspect your question is just worded bit misleading, and you actually mean to ask if the primary key should always be an automatically generated number (also known as surrogate key), or some unique field which is actual meaningful data (also known as natural key), like SSN for people, ISBN for books and so on.
This question is an age old religious war in the DB field.
My take is that natural keys are preferable if they indeed are unique and never change. However, you should be careful, even something seemingly stable like a persons SSN may change under certain circumstances.
Unless the table is a temporary table to stage the data while you work on it, you always want to put a primary key on the table and here's why:
1 - a unique constraint can allow nulls but a primary key never allows nulls. If you run a query with a join on columns with null values you eliminate those rows from the resulting data set because null is not equal to null. This is how even big companies can make accounting errors and have to restate their profits. Their queries didn't show certain rows that should have been included in the total because there were null values in some of the columns of their unique index. Shoulda used a primary key.
2 - a unique index will automatically be placed on the primary key, so you don't have to create one.
3 - most database engines will automatically put a clustered index on the primary key, making queries faster because the rows are stored contiguously in the data blocks. (This can be altered to place the clustered index on a different index if that would speed up the queries.) If a table doesn't have a clustered index, the rows won't be stored contiguously in the data blocks, making the queries slower because the read/write head has to travel all over the disk to pick up the data.
4 - many front end development environments require a primary key in order to update the table or make deletions.
Primary keys should be used in situations where you will be establishing relationships from this table to other tables that will reference this value. However, depending on the nature of the table and the data that you're thinking of applying the unique constraint to, you may be able to use that particular field as a natural primary key rather than having to establish a surrogate key. Of course, surrogate vs natural keys are a whole other discussion. :)
Unique keys can be used if there will be no relationship established between this table and other tables. For example, a table that contains a list of valid email addresses that will be compared against before inserting a new user record or some such. Or unique keys can be used when you have values in a table that has a primary key but must also be absolutely unique. For example, if you have a users table that has a user name. You wouldn't want to use the user name as the primary key, but it must also be unique in order for it to be used for log in purposes.
We need to make a distinction here between logical constructs and physical constructs, and similarly between theory and practice.
To begin with: from a theoretical perspective, if you don't have a primary key, you don't have a table. It's just that simple. So, your question isn't whether your table should have a primary key (of course it should) but how you label it within your RDBMS.
At the physical level, most RDBMSs implement the Primary Key constraint as a Unique Index. If your chosen RDBMS is one of these, there's probably not much practical difference, between designating a column as a Primary Key and simply putting a unique constraint on the column. However: one of these options captures your intent, and the other doesn't. So, the decision is a no-brainer.
Furthermore, some RDBMSs make additional features available if Primary Keys are properly labelled, such as diagramming, and semi-automated foreign-key-constraint support.
Anyone who tells you to use Unique Constraints instead of Primary Keys as a general rule should provide a pretty damned good reason.
the thing is that a primary key can be one or more columns which uniquely identify a single record of a table, where a Unique Constraint is just a constraint on a field which allows only a single instance of any given data element in a table.
PERSONALLY, I use either GUID or auto-incrementing BIGINTS (Identity Insert for SQL SERVER) for unique keys utilized for cross referencing amongst my tables. Then I'll use other data to allow the user to select specific records.
For example, I'll have a list of employees, and have a GUID attached to every record that I use behind the scenes, but when the user selects an employee, they're selecting them based off of the following fields: LastName + FirstName + EmployeeNumber.
My primary key in this scenario is LastName + FirstName + EmployeeNumber while unique key is the associated GUID.
posts saying that it's better to use unique constraint (aka unique index for some db) instead of PK
i guess that the only point here is the same old discussion "natural vs surrogate keys", because unique indexes and pk´s are the same thing.
translating:
posts saying that it's better to use natural key instead of surrogate key
I usually use both PK and UNIQUE KEY. Because even if you don't denote PK in your schema, one is always generated for you internally. It's true both for SQL Server 2005 and MySQL 5.
But I don't use the PK column in my SQLs. It is for management purposes like DELETEing some erroneous rows, finding out gaps between PK values if it's set to AUTO INCREMENT. And, it makes sense to have a PK as numbers, not a set of columns or char arrays.
I've written a lot on this subject: if you read anything of mine be clear that I was probably referring specifically to Jet a.k.a. MS Access.
In Jet, the tables are physically ordered on the PRIMARY KEY using a non-maintained clustered index (is clustered on compact). If the table has no PK but does have candidate keys defined using UNIQUE constraints on NOT NULL columns then the engine will pick one for the clustered index (if your table has no clustered index then it is called a heap, arguably not a table at all!) How does the engine pick a candidate key? Can it pick one which includes nullable columns? I really don't know. The point is that in Jet the only explicit way of specifying the clustered index to the engine is to use PRIMARY KEY. There are of course other uses for the PK in Jet e.g. it will be used as the key if one is omitted from a FOREIGN KEY declaration in SQL DDL but again why not be explicit.
The trouble with Jet is that most people who create tables are unaware of or unconcerned about clustered indexes. In fact, most users (I wager) put an autoincrement Autonumber column on every table and define the PRIMARY KEY solely on this column while failing to put any unique constraints on the natural key and candidate keys (whether an autoincrement column can actually be regarded as a key without exposing it to end users is another discussion in itself). I won't go into detail about clustered indexes here but suffice to say that IMO a sole autoincrement column is rarely to ideal choice.
Whatever you SQL engine, the choice of PRIMARY KEY is arbitrary and engine specific. Usually the engine will apply special meaning to the PK, therefore you should find out what it is and use it to your advantage. I encourage people to use NOT NULL UNIQUE constraints in the hope they will give greater consideration to all candidate keys, especially when they have chosen to use 'autonumber' columns which (should) have no meaning in the data model. But I'd rather folk choose one well considered key and used PRIMARY KEY rather than putting it on the autoincrement column out of habit.
Should all tables have a PK? I say yes because doing otherwise means at the very least you are missing out on a slight advantage the engine affords the PK and at worst you have no data integrity.
BTW Chris OC makes a good point here about temporal tables, which require sequenced primary keys (lowercase) which cannot be implemented via simple PRIMARY KEY constraints (SQL key words in uppercase).
PRIMARY KEY
1. Null
It doesn’t allow Null values. Because of this we refer PRIMARY KEY =
UNIQUE KEY + Not Null CONSTRAINT.
2. INDEX
By default it adds a clustered index.
3. LIMIT
A table can have only one PRIMARY KEY Column[s].
UNIQUE KEY
1. Null
Allows Null value. But only one Null value.
2. INDEX
By default it adds a UNIQUE non-clustered index.
3. LIMIT
A table can have more than one UNIQUE Key Column[s].
If you plan on using LINQ-to-SQL, your tables will require Primary Keys if you plan on performing updates, and they will require a timestamp column if you plan on working in a disconnected environment (such as passing an object through a WCF service application).
If you like .NET, PK's and FK's are your friends.
I submit that you may need both. Primary keys by nature need to be unique and not nullable. They are often surrogate keys as integers create faster joins than character fileds and especially than multiple field character joins. However, as these are often autogenerated, they do not guarantee uniqueness of the data record excluding the id itself. If your table has a natural key that should be unique, you should have a unique index on it to prevent data entry of duplicates. This is a basic data integrity requirement.
Edited to add: It is also a real problem that real world data often does not have a natural key that truly guarantees uniqueness in a normalized table structure, especially if the database is people centered. Names, even name, address and phone number combined (think father and son in the same medical practice) are not necessarily unique.
I was thinking of this problem my self. If you are using unique, you will hurt the 2. NF. According to this every non-pk-attribute has to be depending on the PK. The pair of attributes in this unique constraint are to be considered as part of the PK.
sorry for replying to this 7 years later but didn't want to start a new discussion.
I have the following tables in my database that have a many-to-many relationship, which is expressed by a connecting table that has foreign keys to the primary keys of each of the main tables:
Widget: WidgetID (PK), Title, Price
User: UserID (PK), FirstName, LastName
Assume that each User-Widget combination is unique. I can see two options for how to structure the connecting table that defines the data relationship:
UserWidgets1: UserWidgetID (PK), WidgetID (FK), UserID (FK)
UserWidgets2: WidgetID (PK, FK), UserID (PK, FK)
Option 1 has a single column for the Primary Key. However, this seems unnecessary since the only data being stored in the table is the relationship between the two primary tables, and this relationship itself can form a unique key. Thus leading to option 2, which has a two-column primary key, but loses the one-column unique identifier that option 1 has. I could also optionally add a two-column unique index (WidgetID, UserID) to the first table.
Is there any real difference between the two performance-wise, or any reason to prefer one approach over the other for structuring the UserWidgets many-to-many table?
You only have one primary key in either case. The second one is what's called a compound key. There's no good reason for introducing a new column. In practise, you will have to keep a unique index on all candidate keys. Adding a new column buys you nothing but maintenance overhead.
Go with option 2.
Personally, I would have the synthetic/surrogate key column in many-to-many tables for the following reasons:
If you've used numeric synthetic keys in your entity tables then having the same on the relationship tables maintains consistency in design and naming convention.
It may be the case in the future that the many-to-many table itself becomes a parent entity to a subordinate entity that needs a unique reference to an individual row.
It's not really going to use that much additional disk space.
The synthetic key is not a replacement to the natural/compound key nor becomes the PRIMARY KEY for that table just because it's the first column in the table, so I partially agree with the Josh Berkus article. However, I don't agree that natural keys are always good candidates for PRIMARY KEY's and certainly should not be used if they are to be used as foreign keys in other tables.
Option 2 uses a simple compund key, option 1 uses a surrogate key. Option 2 is preferred in most scenarios and is close to the relational model in that it is a good candidate key.
There are situations where you may want to use a surrogate key (Option 1)
You are not certain that the compound key is a good candidate key over time. Particularly with temporal data (data that changes over time). What if you wanted to add another row to the UserWidget table with the same UserId and WidgetId? Think of Employment(EmployeeId,EmployeeId) - it would work in most cases except if someone went back to work for the same employer at a later date
If you are creating messages/business transactions or something similar that requires an easier key to use for integration. Replication maybe?
If you want to create your own auditing mechanisms (or similar) and don't want keys to get too long.
As a rule of thumb, when modeling data you will find that most associative entities (many to many) are the result of an event. Person takes up employment, item is added to basket etc. Most events have a temporal dependency on the event, where the date or time is relevant - in which case a surrogate key may be the best alternative.
So, take option 2, but make sure that you have the complete model.
I agree with the previous answers but I have one remark to add.
If you want to add more information to the relation and allow more relations between the same two entities you need option one.
For example if you want to track all the times user 1 has used widget 664 in the userwidget table the userid and widgetid isn't unique anymore.
What is the benefit of a primary key in this scenario? Consider the option of no primary key:
UserWidgets3: WidgetID (FK), UserID (FK)
If you want uniqueness then use either the compound key (UserWidgets2) or a uniqueness constraint.
The usual performance advantage of having a primary key is that you often query the table by the primary key, which is fast. In the case of many-to-many tables you don't usually query by the primary key so there is no performance benefit. Many-to-many tables are queried by their foreign keys, so you should consider adding indexes on WidgetID and UserID.
Option 2 is the correct answer, unless you have a really good reason to add a surrogate numeric key (which you have done in option 1).
Surrogate numeric key columns are not 'primary keys'. Primary keys are technically one of the combination of columns that uniquely identify a record within a table.
Anyone building a database should read this article http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/primary-keyvil-part-i-7327 by Josh Berkus to understand the difference between surrogate numeric key columns and primary keys.
In my experience the only real reason to add a surrogate numeric key to your table is if your primary key is a compound key and needs to be used as a foreign key reference in another table. Only then should you even think to add an extra column to the table.
Whenever I see a database structure where every table has an 'id' column the chances are it has been designed by someone who doesn't appreciate the relational model and it will invariably display one or more of the problems identified in Josh's article.
I would go with both.
Hear me out:
The compound key is obviously the nice, correct way to go in so far as reflecting the meaning of your data goes. No question.
However: I have had all sorts of trouble making hibernate work properly unless you use a single generated primary key - a surrogate key.
So I would use a logical and physical data model. The logical one has the compound key. The physical model - which implements the logical model - has the surrogate key and foreign keys.
Since each User-Widget combination is unique, you should represent that in your table by making the combination unique. In other words, go with option 2. Otherwise you may have two entries with the same widget and user IDs but different user-widget IDs.
The userwidgetid in the first table is not needed, as like you said the uniqueness comes from the combination of the widgetid and the userid.
I would use the second table, keep the foriegn keys and add a unique index on widgetid and userid.
So:
userwidgets( widgetid(fk), userid(fk),
unique_index(widgetid, userid)
)
There is some preformance gain in not having the extra primary key, as the database would not need to calculate the index for the key. In the above model though this index (through the unique_index) is still calculated, but I believe that this is easier to understand.