Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue

Brian Selzer wrote:

"Bernard Peek" <bap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:xn0ep1e3sn11oo000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In comp.databases.theory Paul Mansour wrote:

The second is perhaps more profound. Consider a rollback database, or
a database that must provide a complete audit trail of every change.
For example, the database must provide the answer to "who changed
this SS number from X to Y, and when did they change it? As far as I
can tell, if there is no way to answer this without an immutable
identifier. ( I suppose you could design the DB to handle specific
cases, but I'm interested in DBMS with native rollback and audit
trail support.)

If what you think of as the key is mutable it's not a natural key.
Natural keys aren't mutable, at all, ever.

Untrue! Natural keys are often mutable--especially compound keys.


The problem here is that there isn't a usable natural key for
identifying people. So all that's left are surrogates of varying
quality. The SSN is a surrogate that works most of the time. If you
assign someone a payroll number and tell tham that thay won't get paid
unless they can quote it then you have a close to immutable key. But
it's still a surrogate.

I think the original post was part correct. Use a natural key when you
have one. I'd just add to that, don't use a surrogate unless there is a
compelling reason for it. Efficiency is unlikely to be a compelling
argument in most cases.

There is always a compelling reason to use surrogates: natural keys can change. This makes it difficult--if not impossible--to detect changes to rows. For example, Bob is preparing to update a row--that is, he has read the row and is in the process of keying in a change. During that time, another process updated several rows in the same table. Unless the key is immutable, when Bob issues the update, there's no guarantee that the row he's updating is the same one that was read out.

So? Bob issues an update statement to change some attribute identified by a logical identifier. As long as the data Bob is entering is correct, why should he care what happens to any other attributes?


This problem is magnified
if there are rows related via a foreign key constraint because it's possible for the referenced row to appear unchanged. So you're left with either maintaining an exclusive lock on the row until Bob returns from the golf outing, or adding additional columns and code in order to determine with certainty whether or not a change occurred between the time that a row was read and the time of the update.

Or you can just write better applications that don't update anything that didn't change. By introducing some 'under-the-covers' identifying attribute, you create a risk that Bob will change some data identified by a familiar logical identifier and some other process in the meantime will associate that identifier with a different surrogate. Your application will then record the updates against the wrong logical identifier.

It seems to me you just went to a lot of trouble to invent a problem that never existed in the first place.


Natural keys are necessary to maintain the integrity of the information stored in the database; surrogates are necessary to maintain the integrity of information during the time that it is in use by applications.

I disagree entirely.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
    ... a database that must provide a complete audit trail of every ... when Bob issues ... identified by a logical identifier. ... Do Jane Jones and Jane Smith represent different people? ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
    ... a database that must provide a complete audit trail of every change. ... The SSN is a surrogate that works most of the time. ... Unless the key is immutable, when Bob issues the update, there's no guarantee that the row he's updating is the same one that was read out. ... By introducing some 'under-the-covers' identifying attribute, you create a risk that Bob will change some data identified by a familiar logical identifier and some other process in the meantime will associate that identifier with a different surrogate. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
    ... a database that must provide a complete audit trail of every change. ... There is always a compelling reason to use surrogates: ... For example, Bob is preparing to update a row--that is, he has ... a logical identifier. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
    ... a database that must provide a complete audit trail of every change. ... The SSN is a surrogate that works most of the time. ... Unless the key is immutable, when Bob issues the update, there's no guarantee that the row he's updating is the same one that was read out. ... By introducing some 'under-the-covers' identifying attribute, you create a risk that Bob will change some data identified by a familiar logical identifier and some other process in the meantime will associate that identifier with a different surrogate. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: what are keys and surrogates?
    ... identifier, i.e. even the database queries only use them in equalities. ... "hiddenness" of attribute values, a principle that in many theoretical ... what it means for a surrogate to be hidden: Brian is quite close in his ...
    (comp.databases.theory)