How do we specify which key is used for building the index for a
database in SQL?
In most if not all RDBMS, is the search key used for building the index for a database always
the primary key?
From Database Management Systems, 3rd Edition, by Raghu
Ramakrishnan, and Johannes Gehrke
In principle, we can use any key, not just the primary
key, to refer to a tuple. However, using the primary key is
preferable because it is what the DBMS expects - this is the
significance of designating a particular candidate key as a
primary key and optimizes for. For example, the DBMS may create
an index with the primary key fields as the search key, to make the
retrieval of a tuple given its primary key value efficient.
Thanks.
That depends on which RDBMS you are using. It will be something like
CREATE INDEX index_name ON table_name(key_name).
YES and NO.
a) If you are creating a table, and generally the RDBMS will create the index for this table using the primary key you specify in your CREATE TABLE statement. If you don't specify a primary key, RDBMS will help you choose an unique and non-null key, OR create an internal key (probably an int type) as primary key for this table.
b) Sometimes, according to the query pattern, you may find some keys other than primary key are used frequently (in where clause for example), then it is good to build new indexes using these keys.
There are two aspects to your question:
I'm trying to interpret your questions. Perhaps what you need to understand is that there can be more than one index into a table?
Let's say you have a Customers table with 3 columns, CustomerID, LastName, and FirstName.
You create an index using a specific CREATE INDEX or ALTER TABLE command where you specify the specific columns you want to have included in the index. You do not have to have the primary key as part of an index; for example, you may create an index on a table of customers by their last name and first name to speed name searches while still having a different primary key like customerID. Here's some SQL-like syntax.
CREATE INDEX customer_name_idx ON Customers(LastName, FirstName)
This index doesn't include any primary keys nor does it require a primary key to function properly. Internally, it will likely point to some internal row IDs that only the DBMS cares about.
I'm trying to understand what you mean here as well.
A DBMS can return a result regardless of the presence of an index; an index just makes it more efficient if your query matches up nicely with an index.
Designating a column as a primary key provides benefits such as enforced uniqueness, and possibly some performance benefits for enforcing other foreign key constraints.
As your quote says though, there is no written rule that says a primary key must also be an index. MySQL, and probably many other DMBSes, creates an index automatically on the table's primary key as it makes sense to do so from a technical level.
Anyway, I hope this makes sense and I hope I can clarify better if you have other questions.
In SQL Server, I have a non nullable column with a unique clustered index on it.
If I make this column a Primary Key the exact same index is created automatically plus
the column is recognized as a Primary Key.
I understand the abstract/semantic difference.
(Primary Key identifies the entity, while any other column with this index may not.
For example, a Person can have Email field which is Unique,Non-nullable... but can be changed)
But what bothers me is the actual difference when it comes to the DB engine itself.
What will happen if I will just create an Id column, make it non-nullable, create a unique clustered index for it, make it Identity Increment, but without the Primary Key constraint?
In what scenarios the Primary Key constraint comes into play?
(I've looked at many related questions before asking this, but all the answers I saw ended up with an abstract/theoretical explanation).
Nothing will be different really. You specify PRIMARY KEY to relay your intentions, not so that the engine does anything differently. When constructing a query plan, the optimizer will still use the uniqueness for all of its properties, and will still use the clustered index for all of its properties, regardless of whether you technically created it as a PRIMARY KEY. When creating a FOREIGN KEY, you can still reference the column(s) specified as unique (clustered or not). The difference is solely in the metadata (sys.indexes.is_primary_key) and in SSMS' representation to you (oh and the fact that you can create a unique clustered index on a NULLable column, but you can't create a PRIMARY KEY on that column).
In fact there are many cases where you want to completely separate the clustered index from the PRIMARY KEY. If you have a table where the PK is a GUID, for example, and you are typically running date range queries against the table, you are probably better off having the PK be non-clustered and have a clustered index on a naturally increasing column (the datetime column) - both to minimize page splits on heavy insert activity and also to best assist date range queries. The non-clustered index will be perfectly fine for looking up individual GUIDs. (I wanted to mention that because a lot of people think the primary key has to be clustered. Not true.)
Also interesting to note that if you create a PRIMARY KEY constraint, then create a unique clustered index with the same name using DROP_EXISTING, the is_primary_key column will still be 1 and Object Explorer will still show the index name under Keys.
Here is one scenario - a lot of code to data mapping frameworks look at the database metadata (what are the primary keys, foreign keys, etc) to determine how code is executed. For example Hibernate requires a primary key.
A typical scenario might be generating a where clause for an update.
What meaning does the concept of a primary key have to the database engine of SQL Server? I don't mean the clustered/nonclustered index created on the "ID" column, i mean the constraint object "primary key". Does it matter if it exists or not?
Alternatives:
alter table add primary key clustered
alter table create clustered index
Does it make a difference?
In general, a KEY is a column (or combination of columns) that uniquely identifies each row in the table. It is possible to have multiple KEYs in a table (for example, you might have a Person table where both the social security number as well as an auto-increasing number are both KEYs).
The database designer chooses one of theses KEYs to be the PRIMARY KEY. Conceptually, it does not matter which KEY is chosen as the PRIMARY KEY. However, since the PRIMARY KEY is usually used to refer to entries in this table from other tables (through FOREIGN KEYs), choosing a good PRIMARY KEY can be relevant w.r.t. (a) performance and (b) maintainability:
(a) Since the primary key will usually be used in JOINs, the index on the primary key (its size, its distribution, ...) is much more relevant to performance than other indexes.
(b) Since the primary key is used as a foreign key in other tables, changing the primary key value is always a hassle, since all the foreign key values in the other tables need to be modified as well.
A PRIMARY KEY is a constraint - this is a logical object that says something about the rules that your data must adhere to. An index is an access structure - it says something about the way the machine can search through the data. To implement a PRIMARY KEY, most RDBMS-es use an index.
Some RDBMS-es (fe. MySQL) do not make the distinction between PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE constraint and the index that is used to help implement it. But for example, Oracle does: in oracle you can do something like: ALTER TABLE t DROP pk KEEP INDEX. This is useful if you want to change the definition of the primary key (for example, you are replacing a natural primary key with a surrogate primary key) but you still want to have a unique constraint on the original primary key columns without rebuilding the index. That makes sense if the index is very large and would take considerable table and resources to rebuild.
From what I can see, MS SQL does not make the distinction. I mean a tool like Management studio does display "Keys", "Indexes" and "Constraints" in differrent folders, but changing the name of one immediately changes the name of the corresponding objects in the other folders. So I think here the distinction is not really present in this case.
I have a junction table in my SQL Server 2005 database that consist of two columns:
object_id (uniqueidentifier)
property_id (integer)
These values together make a compound primary key.
What's the best way to create this PK index for SELECT performance?
If the columns were two integers, I would just use a compound clustered index (the default). However, I've heard bad things about clustered indexes when uniqueidentifiers are involved.
Anyone have experience with this situation?
Yes, GUID's are really bad for clustered indexes, since the GUIDs is by design very random and thus leads to massive fragmentation and thus performance problems.
See Kim Tripp's blog - most notably "The CLustered Index Debate continues" and "GUIDs as PRIMARY and/or CLUSTERED key" - for a lot of valuable background info.
If you really need to have an index on these TWO columns, I'd suggest a non-clustered index - it can be a primary index - just better not a clustered index.
Marc
One alternative is to use what is known as a surrogate key (which incidentally can also be assigned as the primary key).
For example, adding an identity column that can be used to uniquely identify each row within the table i.e. a primary key.
Understand that a GUID is used to identify a record globally within SQL Server (which arguably is not a relationally correct practice however that is not a concern for us here).
The identity column, now also a primary key can/will have a clustered index applied. A separate, nonclustered index can then be applied to the compound key described by the original poster.
This practice avoids the issue of frequent page splits occurring within the clustered index (inserts into a random GUID primary key) as well as producing a smaller and more efficient clustered index, whilst also preserving the relationships defined within the database.
Surrogate Key Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_key
I i would create an identity column & then make this your primary key & clustered index. You can then create non clustered indexes on objectid propertyid as needed.
You can create a unique constraint to ensure uniqueness of your key.
The reason for this is that the rows will be inserted sequentially, so your reducing page splits. in addition using an integer for your PK means you have a smaller value for your clustered index.
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.