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.
Related
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
What is the difference between Primary key And unique Key constraint?
What's the use of it??
Both are used to denote candidate keys for a table.
You can only have one primary key for a table so would just need to pick one if you have multiple candidates.
Either can be used in Foreign Key constraints. In SQL Server the Primary Key columns cannot be nullable. Columns used in Unique Key constraints can be.
By default in SQL Server the Primary Key will become the clustered index if it is created on a heap but it is by no means mandatory that the PK and clustered index should be the same.
A primary key is one which is used to identify the row in question. It might also have some meaning beyond that (if there was already a piece of "real" data that could serve) or it may be purely an implementation artefact (most IDENTITY columns, and equivalent auto-incremented values on other database systems).
A unique key is a more general case, where a key cannot have repeated values. In most cases people cannot have the same social security numbers in relation to the same jurisdiction (an international case could differ). Hence if we were storing social security numbers, then we would want to model them as unique, as any case of them matching an existing number is clearly wrong. Usernames generally must be unique also, so here's another case. External identifiers (identifiers used by another system, standard or protocol) tend to also be unique, e.g. there is only one language that has a given ISO 639 code, so if we were storing ISO 639 codes we would model that as unique.
This uniqueness can also be across more than one column. For example, in most hierarchical categorisation systems (e.g. a folder structure) no item can have both the same parent item and the same name, though there could be other items with the same parent and different names, and others with the same name and different parents. This multi-column capability is also present on primary keys.
A table may also have more than one unique key. E.g. a user may have both an id number and a username, and both will need to be unique.
Any non-nullable unique key can therefore serve as a primary key. Sometimes primary keys that come from the innate data being modelled are referred to as "natural primary keys", because they are a "natural" part of the data, rather than just an implementation artefact. The decision as to which to use depends on a few things:
Likelihood of change of specification. If we modelled a social security number as unique and then had to adapt to allow for multiple jurisdictions where two or more use a similar enough numbering system to allow for collisions, we likely need just remove the uniqueness constraint (other changes may be needed). If it was our primary key, we now also need to use a new primary key, and change any table that was using that primary key as part of a relationship, and any query that joined on it.
Speed of look-up. Key efficiency can be important, as they are used in many WHERE clauses and (more often) in many JOINs. With JOINS in particular, speed of lookup can be vital. The impact will depend on implementation details, and different databases vary according to how they will handle different datatypes (I would have few qualms from a performance perspective in using a large piece of text as a primary key in Postgres where I could specify the use of hash joins, but I'd be very hesitant to do so in SQLServer [Edit: for "large" I'm thinking of perhaps the size of a username, not something the size of the entire Norse Eddas!]).
Frequency of the key being the only interesting data. For example, with a table of languages, and a table of pieces of comments in that language, very often the only reason I would want to join on the language table when dealing with the comments table is either to obtain the language code or to restrict a query to those with a particular language code. Other information about the language is likely to be much more rarely used. In this case while joining on the code is likely to be less efficient than joining on a numeric id set from an IDENTITY column, having the code as the primary key - and hence as what is stored in the foreign key column on the comments table - will remove the need for any JOIN at all, with a considerable efficiency gain. More often though I want more information from the relevant tables than that, so making the JOIN more efficient is more important.
Primary key:
Primary key is nothing but it uniquely identifies each row in a table.
Primary key does not allow duplicate values, nor NULL.
Primary key by default is a clustered index.
A table can have only one primary key.
Unique Key:
Unique key is nothing but it uniquely identifies each row in a table.
Unique key does not allow duplicate values, but it allows (at most one) NULL.
Unique key by default is a non-clustered index.
This is a fruit full link to understand the Primary Key Database Keys.
Keep in mind we have only one clustered index in a table [Talking about SQL Server 2005].
Now if we want to add another unique column then we will use Unique Key column, because
Unique Key column can be added more than one.
A primary key is just any one candidate key. In principle primary keys are not different from any other candidate key because all keys are equal in the relational model.
SQL however has two different syntax for implementing candidate keys: the PRIMARY KEY constraint and the UNIQUE constraint (on non-nullable columns of course). In practice they achieve exactly the same thing except for the essentially useless restriction that a PRIMARY KEY can only be used once per table whereas a UNIQUE constraint can be used multiple times.
So there is no fundamental "use" for the PRIMARY KEY constraint. It is redundant and could easily be ignored or dropped from the language altogether. However, many people find it convenient to single out one particular key per table as having special significance. There is a very widely observed convention that keys designated with PRIMARY KEY are used for foreign key references, although this is entirely optional.
Short version:
From the point of view of database theory, there is none. Both are simply candidate keys.
In practice, most DMBS like to have one "standard key", which can be used for e.g. deciding how to store data, and to tell tools and DB clients which is the best way to identify a record.
So distinguishing one unique key as the "primary key" is just an implementation convenience (but an important one).
I have a table (session_comments) with the following fields structure:
student_id (foreign key to students table)
session_id (foreign key to sessions table)
session_subject_ID (foreign key to session_subjects table)
user_id (foreign key to users table)
comment_date_time
comment
Now, the combination of student_id, session_id, and session_subject_id will uniquely identify a comment about that student for that session subject.
Given that combined they are unique, even though they are foreign keys, is there an advantage to me making them the combined primary key for that table?
Thanks again.
Making them the primary key will force uniqueness (as opposed to imply it).
The primary key will presumably be clustered (depending on the dbms) which will improve performance for some queries.
It saves the space of adding a unique constraint which in some DBMS also creates a unique index.
Whether you make these three the primary key or not, you will still need some sort of uniqueness constraint to guarantee that a student cannot be associated with the same session and session_subject_id twice. If that scenario is allowed, then you would need to expand your uniqueness constraint out to include another column.
No matter what choice you make, you should absolutely have some sort of uniqueness constraint on the table.
If you are debating as to whether to create a surrogate primary key + a unique constraint on the three columns, I would say that it depends on whether this table will have child tables. If it will, then referencing the surrogate key will be easier and smaller. If it will not, then IMO, the surrogate key does not really give you much and you might as well use the three columns as the PK.
It depends on the rest of the application.
If you're not going to have foreign keys to the comments table (which seems probable), this is fine.
If you will need to refer to comments from another table, you'd be better to create a unique index with your 3 fields, plus an AutoNumber primary key that will serve in other tables as the foreign key (much simpler and cheaper than the 3 fields).
The debate of natural vs artificial keys is as old as any database implementation.
Read about pro's and con's on wikipedia.
Arguments for the surrogate keys are easily disputed on theoretical level (for example argument that with natural keys you run the risk of your PK becoming non-unique can be counter-argumented with answer - good! if I run into that situation it is good that things would break instead of having artificially unique primary keys with duplicate records for actual data).
Another good argument is that artificial keys are either redundant (there is another unique key on the table) or they are allowing you to store essentially non-unique records.
Still, finding good natural keys is sometimes so hard that you must choose something artificial and allow for situation when you will have a person with a same name, born on same date (or with unknown date), with another xy properties that are same in value.
Also, it is not so clear what is artificial and what is natural.
You might say for example that SSN is natural for your data. Even though it is really composed number.
As for the performance of multi-key relationships - these are not as bad as you would think, furthermore - it segments the indices in a natural way and with such keys you usually end up with a database that performs really nicely with common queries without any additional indexes.
If you consider these problems seriously and if you are trying to build complex system, please read some good literature (C.J.Date Introduction to Database Systems, currently in 8th edition comes to mind)
I'd really recommend you use a primary key that's generated for you by your database of choice. Mainly because if you alter the structure of that table during any future maintainance then you run the risk of your unique key becoming non-unique. Which can be a really tough problem to sort out. Also having a unique primary key makes querying the table much, much easier.
Unique IDs for postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/datatype.html#DATATYPE-SERIAL
Unique IDs for Mysql: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/example-auto-increment.html
The only reason to make them into a composite primary key would be to enforce one comment per student/Session/Subject. Assuming you don't want to do that, I would not create another key.
No. FOREIGN keys can contain NULLs which are not allowed in PRIMARY keys. The best you can do is create a UNIQUE index from the columns.
Create a PRIMARY key on the table.
Response: My next question is:
Is there a possibility of overlap between the keys from the 4 tables?
These two would create the same composite key of 101010101:
student: 1010,session: 10,subject: 10,user: 1
student: 10,session: 1010,subject: 10,user: 1
I'm just pointing out that the four columns should have clearly different domains for the overlap to diminish in possibility.
Probably best to go with a true primary key.
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.
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.