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 |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
 Posted - 2001-07-06 : 11:10:52
|
| Alex Matei writes "My database is in third normal form and comprises 20 tables. In order to take out the minimum useful information I have to join 6 tables.To offer you some details, I am working in a telephone company where I keep track about: phone number, name, full address, subscription options,technical aparatus information and billinginfo. So I've got 6 table containing each 400.000 articles joined by using the 'phone number' and 'area code as primary/foreign keys and some other 'dumb' numerical keysI've heard and also read in one database design book that I might replace these numerical keys with real, meaningful names. Of course that these meaningful names keep the quality of being unique.This way I have to join only 3 tables and sometimes only 2 !The meaningful names could be 100 characters long at most. The database info is pretty statical, there is one big monthlyupdate.I am trying to make my SQL Server 2000 application more responsive to the users. That means I usually strive for displaying information as quickly as possible. I would like somebody to comment this 'idiom' of usingmeaningful primary keys.I am using Windows 2000 server and SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition." |
|
|
|
|
|
Meaningful primary keys or 'dumb' primary keys