Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
kpgraci
Yak Posting Veteran
68 Posts |
 Posted - 2011-10-13 : 12:30:35
|
| I have some tables that relate one table to another, so they consist of only two fields, both FK's from the two parent tables.Also I have tables that hold a subset of data, for example I'll have a client table, and then if that client is a person I will have extra data about the client in a clientinfo table, if a business a businessinfo table - both of these sub-tables have only a FK of the main table.In these cases, is it good design to have an autoincrement PK ID field in these tables? It will never be used but it seems odd to not have a PK.kpg |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2011-10-13 : 12:34:13
|
| you can either have an autoincrement pk or you may choose composite combination of id fields as the PK------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SQL Server MVPhttp://visakhm.blogspot.com/ |
 |
|
|
human12
Starting Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 2011-10-27 : 07:32:10
|
| The two fields are unique and they should be, otherwise u have design issues, so u create a composite keyif by design and due to something urgent, they are not unique, then u can introduce increment to be your PKTarek OmarTechnical Manager and Database Administratorhttp://intosql.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should I always have a PK?