I am having a very small tables with at most 5 records that holds some labels. I am using Postgres.
The structure is as follows:
id - smallint
label - varchar(100)
The table will be used mainly to reference the rows from other tables. The question is if it's really necessary to have a primary key on id or to have just an index on the id or have them both?
I did read about indexes and primary keys and I understand that this depends quite a lot on what's the table going to be used for:
Tables with no Primary Key
Edit: I was going to ask about having a primary key or an index or have them both. I edited the question.
It is always good practice to have a primary key column. The typical scenario it is needed is when you want to update or delete a row, having a PK makes it much easier and safer.
Yes, a primary key is not only good practice -- it's crucial. A table that lacks a unique key fails to be in First Normal Form.
You must declare a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE constraint if you want other tables to reference this one with a foreign key.
In most RDBMS brands, both PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints implicitly create an index on the column(s). If it doesn't do this implicitly, you may be required to define the index yourself before you can declare the constraint.
Yes, you will need a primary key on the id field, since you do not want two labels that share the same id.
You also want an index, to speed up the search/lookup process in this table (although for small tables there is less performance gain). The sequence will just help you fill in the next ID; it does not prevent you from changing a previous value into one that already exists.
There are very little reasons for creating an index instead of a primary key. AS Bill Karwin said, you won't save resources at all. And, as you may have already guessed, there is no need at all to create a new index if you have the primary key.
In some cases it may be hard to find a key candidate. But it doesn't seems to be the case and it clearly goes against some good practices.
By the way. As your table is so small most queries will rather use a full table scan even if there is an index. Don't worry you see a full table scan.
From the developer's point of view, PRIMARY KEY is just a combination of NOT NULL and UNIQUE INDEX on one of the columns.
A UNIQUE INDEX is good if:
You need to enforce uniqueness. Using index is the most efficient way to do that.
You need to perform a SELECT, UPDATE or DELETE with a WHERE condition that is selective on the indexed field, that is number of rows affected by the query is much less that total number of the rows (say, 10 rows of 2,000,000).
A UNIQUE INDEX is bad if:
You don't need uniqueness on this field, of course :) But you'll better have one unique index in the table, for each record to be identifiable.
You need fast INSERTS
You need fast UPDATE's and DELETE's of the indexed value with a WHERE condition that is not selective on the indexed field, that is number of rows affected by the query is comparable to the total number of the rows (say, 1,500,000 rows of 2,000,000).
Given that you are going to have a little table, I'd advice you to create a PRIMARY KEY on it.
Related
I have unique contraint on 5 nullable columns that represent identifier of one row.
Is it okay to create unique key and create clustered index on it instead of primary key? I cannot use primary key on these columns because they are nullable, and i cannot create identity column because there are lot of deletes and inserts and it will make overflow on this identity column.
Yes, and there's an argument that this is actually "better" than a primary key, as the rule that a primary key column is non nullable is in many ways an artificial constraint.
If you make it a UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX then you get just about everything that a primary key brings to the table except the unwanted rule that the columns must be non nullable. However, they must still be unique, so you could only ever have one row where all five columns in your index are null for example.
So you can use your index when creating foreign key constraints, you will guarantee the order data is stored, and each row must be unique. However, the index probably won't be incredibly useful for querying, and, because it's going to be wide, and you said there's a lot of deletes/ inserts, it will have a tendency to fragment your data.
Personally, I would be tempted to make it a unique constraint, but not clustered. Then it will do the job of keeping non-unique data from being created.
You could then add a surrogate key and make this the primary key. I doubt you would ever "run out" (or "overflow"?) of numbers doing this.
So why would I use a surrogate key?
Your surrogate key will be much narrower, so less impact from fragmentation due to so many inserts/ updates/ deletes.
It's then useful if you need to extend your database. Say you only have one table, and this is always going to be the only table in the entire database. In this one scenario it would make sense to not bother with a surrogate key. It doesn't give you any value; it's just an unnecessary overhead.
However, let's assume that you have other tables hanging off your "main" table (the one with 5 columns forming a unique key). Adding a surrogate key here allows you to make any child tables with a single id that links back to the parent table. The alternative would be to enforce the addition of ALL five columns forming the unique (candidate) key every time you create a child table.
Now you have a narrow clustered index that actually serves a purpose, and the fragmentation will not be quite as bad as it would with five columns.
In my system I have temporary entities that are created based on rules stored in my database, and the entities are not persisted.
Now, I need is to store information about these entities, and because they are created based on rules and are not stored, they have no ID.
I came up with a formula to generate an ID for these temp entities based on the rule that was used to generate them: id = rule id + "-" + entity index in the rule. This formula generates unique strings of the form 164-3, 123-0, 432-2, etc...
My question is how should I build my table (regarding primary key and clustered index) when my keys have no relation or order? Keep in mind that I will only (99.9% of the time) query the table using the id mentioned above.
Options I thought about after much reading, but don't have the knowledge to determine which is better:
1) primary key on a varchar column with clustered index. -According to various sources, this would be bad because of fragmentation and the wideness of the key. Also their format is pretty weird for sorting.
2) primary key on varchar column without clustered index (heap table). -Also a bad idea according to various sources due to indexing and fragmentation issues.
3) identity int column with clustered index, and a varchar column as primary key with unique index. -Can't really see the benefit of the surogate key here since it would mainly help with range queries and ordering and I would never query the table based on this key because it would be unknown at all times.
4) 2 columns composite key: rule id + rule index columns.
-Now I don't have strings but I have two columns that will be copied to FKs and non clustered indexes. Also I'm not sure what indexes I would use in this case.
Can anybody shine a light here? Any help is appreciated.
--Edit
I will perform more selects than inserts;
I will perform more inserts than updates;
All selects will include at least rule id;
If I use a surogate primary key, and a unique index on (rule id, index), then I can use the surogate for subsequent operations after retrieving data by rule id, which would be faster. Also, inserts would be faster.
However, because the data will be stored according to the surogate key, I might have records that have the same rule id, but different index, stored quite far from each other on disk, which means even with an index on rule id, retrieving the data could be kinda slow.
If I use (rule id, index) as clustered primary key, rows with same rule id would be stored close to each other, and selecting data by rule id would be efficient enough. However, I suspect inserts would be slow.
Is the rationale above correct?
Using a heap is generally a bad idea unless proven otherwise. Even so, you will need a very solid reason for not having a clustered index (any one will make things better, even on identity column).
Storing this key in a single column is okay; if you want natural sorting, you can pad your numbers with zeroes, for example. However, this will widen the key.
Having a composite primary key (and, subsequently, foreign keys) is completely acceptable, especially when dealing with natural keys, like the one you have. This will give you the narrowest possible key - int + int or some such - while eliminating the sorting issue at the same time. I would recommend to make this PK clustered to reduce additional key lookups.
Fragmentation here will not be a big issue; at least, no bigger than with any other indexing decision. Any index built on such a key will be prone to fragmentation, clustered or no. In any case, your DBA should know how to keep an index such as this in top form.
Regarding the order of columns in the index, the following rules usually apply:
If partial key match will take place (filtering by one part of the key but not by the other) the one which is used most often should go first;
If No.1 isn't applicable and all parts of the key used in all queries, the column with the highest cardinality should go first.
The order of remaining columns (if there are more than 1) isn't of much importance because SQL Server only creates distribution statistics for the first column in a composite index. However, it is a good idea to list them in order of decreasing cardinality.
EDIT: Seeing your update with additional details, here are the most suitable options. Suppose your table looks like this:
-- Sample table
create table dbo.TempEntities (
RuleId int not null,
IndexId int not null,
-- Remaining columns listed here
EntityData xml not null
);
go
From here, the most straightforward way is to use the natural key as a clustered index:
-- Option 1 - natural clustered index
alter table dbo.TempEntities
add constraint PK_TempEntities primary key clustered (RuleId, IndexId);
go
However, if you have any child tables that would reference this one, it might not be the most convenient solution, because natural keys are prone to updates, which creates a mess where you could avoid it. Instead, a surrogate key can be introduced, like this:
-- Option 2 - surrogate clustered, natural nonclustered
alter table dbo.TempEntities add Id bigint identity(1,1) not null;
alter table dbo.TempEntities
add constraint PK_TempEntities primary key clustered (Id);
alter table dbo.TempEntities
add constraint UQ_TempEntities_RuleIdIndexId unique (RuleId, IndexId);
go
It makes sense to have the surrogate PK clustered, because it will result in much less page splits, making inserts faster (despite having one index more compared to Option 1). Without any intimate knowledge of your queries, this is probably the most balanced solution.
Shuffling the clustered attribute between surrogate and natural keys has mostly academic value and can only make difference on a high-load system with hundreds of inserts happening every second on 24*7 schedule. If your system is indeed as such, please seek a professional consultant who will analyse your queries and provide the solution tailored to your situation.
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
I'm creating a database table and I don't have a logical primary key assigned to it. Should each and every table have a primary key?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer:
You need your table to be joinable on something
If you want your table to be clustered, you need some kind of a primary key.
If your table design does not need a primary key, rethink your design: most probably, you are missing something. Why keep identical records?
In MySQL, the InnoDB storage engine always creates a primary key if you didn't specify it explicitly, thus making an extra column you don't have access to.
Note that a primary key can be composite.
If you have a many-to-many link table, you create the primary key on all fields involved in the link. Thus you ensure that you don't have two or more records describing one link.
Besides the logical consistency issues, most RDBMS engines will benefit from including these fields in a unique index.
And since any primary key involves creating a unique index, you should declare it and get both logical consistency and performance.
See this article in my blog for why you should always create a unique index on unique data:
Making an index UNIQUE
P.S. There are some very, very special cases where you don't need a primary key.
Mostly they include log tables which don't have any indexes for performance reasons.
Always best to have a primary key. This way it meets first normal form and allows you to continue along the database normalization path.
As stated by others, there are some reasons not to have a primary key, but most will not be harmed if there is a primary key
Disagree with the suggested answer. The short answer is: NO.
The purpose of the primary key is to uniquely identify a row on the table in order to form a relationship with another table. Traditionally, an auto-incremented integer value is used for this purpose, but there are variations to this.
There are cases though, for example logging time-series data, where the existence of a such key is simply not needed and just takes up memory. Making a row unique is simply ...not required!
A small example:
Table A: LogData
Columns: DateAndTime, UserId, AttribA, AttribB, AttribC etc...
No Primary Key needed.
Table B: User
Columns: Id, FirstName, LastName etc.
Primary Key (Id) needed in order to be used as a "foreign key" to LogData table.
Pretty much any time I've created a table without a primary key, thinking I wouldn't need one, I've ended up going back and adding one. I now create even my join tables with an auto-generated identity field that I use as the primary key.
Except for a few very rare cases (possibly a many-to-many relationship table, or a table you temporarily use for bulk-loading huge amounts of data), I would go with the saying:
If it doesn't have a primary key, it's not a table!
Marc
Just add it, you will be sorry later when you didn't (selecting, deleting. linking, etc)
Will you ever need to join this table to other tables? Do you need a way to uniquely identify a record? If the answer is yes, you need a primary key. Assume your data is something like a customer table that has the names of the people who are customers. There may be no natural key because you need the addresses, emails, phone numbers, etc. to determine if this Sally Smith is different from that Sally Smith and you will be storing that information in related tables as the person can have mulitple phones, addesses, emails, etc. Suppose Sally Smith marries John Jones and becomes Sally Jones. If you don't have an artifical key onthe table, when you update the name, you just changed 7 Sally Smiths to Sally Jones even though only one of them got married and changed her name. And of course in this case withouth an artificial key how do you know which Sally Smith lives in Chicago and which one lives in LA?
You say you have no natural key, therefore you don't have any combinations of field to make unique either, this makes the artficial key critical.
I have found anytime I don't have a natural key, an artifical key is an absolute must for maintaining data integrity. If you do have a natural key, you can use that as the key field instead. But personally unless the natural key is one field, I still prefer an artifical key and unique index on the natural key. You will regret it later if you don't put one in.
It is a good practice to have a PK on every table, but it's not a MUST. Most probably you will need a unique index, and/or a clustered index (which is PK or not) depending on your need.
Check out the Primary Keys and Clustered Indexes sections on Books Online (for SQL Server)
"PRIMARY KEY constraints identify the column or set of columns that have values that uniquely identify a row in a table. No two rows in a table can have the same primary key value. You cannot enter NULL for any column in a primary key. We recommend using a small, integer column as a primary key. Each table should have a primary key. A column or combination of columns that qualify as a primary key value is referred to as a candidate key."
But then check this out also: http://www.aisintl.com/case/primary_and_foreign_key.html
To make it future proof you really should. If you want to replicate it you'll need one. If you want to join it to another table your life (and that of the poor fools who have to maintain it next year) will be so much easier.
I am in the role of maintaining application created by offshore development team. Now I am having all kinds of issues in the application because original database schema did not contain PRIMARY KEYS on some tables. So please dont let other people suffer because of your poor design. It is always good idea to have primary keys on tables.
Late to the party but I wanted to add my two cents:
Should each and every table have a primary key?
If you are talking about "Relational Albegra", the answer is Yes. Modelling data this way requires the entities and tables to have a primary key. The problem with relational algebra (apart from the fact there are like 20 different, mismatching flavors of it), is that it only exists on paper. You can't build real world applications using relational algebra.
Now, if you are talking about databases from real world apps, they partially/mostly adhere to the relational algebra, by taking the best of it and by overlooking other parts of it. Also, database engines offer massive non-relational functionality nowadays (it's 2020 now). So in this case the answer is No. In any case, 99.9% of my real world tables have a primary key, but there are justifiable exceptions. Case in point: event/log tables (multiple indexes, but not a single key in sight).
Bottom line, in transactional applications that follow the entity/relationship model it makes a lot of sense to have primary keys for almost (if not) all of the tables. If you ever decide to skip the primary key of a table, make sure you have a good reason for it, and you are prepared to defend your decision.
I know that in order to use certain features of the gridview in .NET, you need a primary key in order for the gridview to know which row needs updating/deleting. General practice should be to have a primary key or primary key cluster. I personally prefer the former.
I'd like to find something official like this - 15.6.2.1 Clustered and Secondary Indexes - MySQL.
If the table has no PRIMARY KEY or suitable UNIQUE index, InnoDB internally generates a hidden clustered index named GEN_CLUST_INDEX on a synthetic column containing row ID values. The rows are ordered by the ID that InnoDB assigns to the rows in such a table. The row ID is a 6-byte field that increases monotonically as new rows are inserted. Thus, the rows ordered by the row ID are physically in insertion order.
So, why not create primary key or something like it by yourself? Besides, ORM cannot identify this hidden ID, meaning that you cannot use ID in your code.
I always have a primary key, even if in the beginning I don't have a purpose in mind yet for it. There have been a few times when I eventually need a PK in a table that doesn't have one and it's always more trouble to put it in later. I think there is more of an upside to always including one.
If you are using Hibernate its not possible to create an Entity without a primary key. This issues can create problem if you are working with an existing database which was created with plain sql/ddl scripts, and no primary key was added
In short, no. However, you need to keep in mind that certain client access CRUD operations require it. For future proofing, I tend to always utilize primary keys.
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.