A Microsoft Office (Excel, Word) forum. OfficeFrustration

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » OfficeFrustration forum » Microsoft Access » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Primary Keys



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 12th, 2006, 08:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.access
Jerry Whittle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,732
Default Primary Keys

States! Do you know that:

the state of North Dakota tried to change its name to just Dakota a couple
years ago?

in the '70s there was a movement to split California into three states?

West Virginia was part of Virginia until the Civil War?

there's been attempts to make Puerto Rico a state?

Just goes to show that some things considered rock solid could change in the
future. That's why I like autonumbers for primary keys.
--
Jerry Whittle
Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.


"LurfysMa" wrote:

Most of the reference books recommend autonum primary keys, but the
Access help says that any unique keys will work.

What are the tradeoffs?

I have several tables that have unique fields. Can I use them as
primary keys or should I define an autonum primary key?

One table has information about the 50 states in the US. The table
looks like this:

State Capitol Date Admitted
Alabama Montgomery December 14, 1819
Alaska Juneau January 3, 1959
Arizona Phoenix February 14, 1912

Since the state names are unique, is there any reason not to make that
field the primary key?

Another table has to do with grade school multiplication tables. This
is a simple table something like this:

Factors Answer
1x1 1
2x1 2
2x2 4
3x1 3
3x2 6
3x3 9
...
12x1 12
12x2 24
...
12x12 144

Here again, the Factors field (a text field) is unique. Is there any
reason not to use it as the primary key?

In both cases, the tables are small, so adding another 4-byte field is
no big deal, but I'd like to keep the tables as simple as possible
unless there is some downside.

Thanks

--
Running MS Office 2000 Pro on Win2000

  #12  
Old July 12th, 2006, 09:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
Albert D.Kallal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Primary Keys

State Capitol Date Admitted
Alabama Montgomery December 14, 1819
Alaska Juneau January 3, 1959
Arizona Phoenix February 14, 1912

Since the state names are unique, is there any reason not to make that
field the primary key?


Yes, there are several good reasons. First, you might find some spelling
errors. You might come out with a French version. Or, someone wants the
names to be spelled in German, or whatever tickles your fancy. If you use a
autonumber, and then start using a description for the State in place of the
name, then your database can continue to function without modification.

As others mentioned, there is much philosophy and strong views on each side
of the camp (natural keys vs autonumber keys).

My view is that when you relate a table, I simply want the database to

please give me a relation between those two tables I specify. At that
point, I give NOT one hoot about what field is used, and in fact I don't
even want to waste my brain power coming up with a field to create the
relaton. I want a one to many relaton. What you do after that is your
business!!

Here is my rant on this subject. It also explains why you don't every want
to expose the autonumber to the end user.

Be forewarned...this is a old post..and is a rant..but, it gives you the
idea of how much fervor can go into the subject...

----------------

Why would you EVE"R care what id ms-access uses for the relation?

Do you care what memory segment word gets loaded into? Do you
care if it is memory segment 32, or 8192?

Are you now to ask users with a prompt as to what memory locaton that your
word document will load into? Who cares..that junk is for comptuers to deal
with...not humans...


Who cares about a number you, and your users will NEVER see?

An autonumber is some mechanistic to generate a number. To you and me, all
we care about is that we have a relation from customers to customers invoice
table. Do we really care, or have to know what number is used?

Really, when word loads into memory, we don't care about the number used for
the memory location. Really, when ms-access has a relation between customers
and the invoice file...again we don't give a hoot about what number is used.
Me, or you never sees the segment number when word loads, and we as users
will never see the autonumber either.

These numbers are NOT for humans to see.....

There is a ZILLION kinds of internal numbers that your computer uses all day
to function. Why do you care what memory segment numbers the computer used
to load ms-access, or ms-word? Why care?

If your folks can see, or use those autonumbers...then that is your problem
with autonumbers.

The real wrong being done here is that users can see, or use the
autonumbers. I mean, do you want ms-word to start showing you the memory
segment numbers it uses to load a document into memory? It would be crazy to
force users to deal with memory segment numbers when using word.

With ms-access, YOU NOW are the software developer. So, just like those
developers who creased word, they don't show users what memory location the
documents load into. You as a developer has a responsibly to NOT LET USERS
see the autonumber.

If you need some number for your users, then you need to write your own
custom code that generates those numbers for human consumption (say, things
like invoice number etc.). You do NOT want to use the invoice number for
relations etc (you still use a internal autonumber, and that way you don't
even care if the invoice has a invoice number, or perhaps you wait a
specified time until a invoice number is given. Either way, you can still
have your relational database function...but behind the scenes it is using a
autonumber).

Your database should not crap out just because you don't have a order number
handy. Who even cares if you enter a order number, or not? Why should your
database stop function if you don't enter a order number? Even if you change
the order number, again..why should your database not work? Maybe you need
to delete the order number? (again, what on planet earth does deleing some
arbitrary number like the order number HAVE ANYTHING to do with building a
functional relation between two tables? How possibility does these two
separate concepts have anything in common?).

You users should NEVER EVER see a autonumber.

You mistake here is to try and let humans see, or even refer to, or use the
autonumber in any way. Autonumbers are NOT to be given meaning by
humans...but ONLY to your software.

Who cars if you have a order number, or not? What does the fact of having a
order number have to do with your database to functionally correctly? If you
want to require that a order number HAS to be entered, then make the order
number a required field, but that simple stupid order number HAS NOTING to
do with setting up a relation between two tables.

Setup your relation between tables with internal numbers, and your database
will JUST WORK REGARDLESS of what fields, and things you decide to store as
data. Do not go and attached some number out of the blue like a stupid order
number to build relations between your tables. Can you imagine if products
like QuickBooks, or even products like ms-word exposed internal numbers used
for relations and other internal numbers as to how the software will
function? Software uses ZILLIONS AND ZILLIONS of internal numbers and
pointers to function.

Now that YOU ARE the software developer, it is up to you to hide these
numbers. You can expose these internal numbers (like autonumbers), but that
is just rude, and just services to torture your users. Hide all the internal
number stuff....every other developer before you did this....

Why expose users to the exhaust pipe of a car when all they want to do is
drive? Software is a machine you build. Build it...make it work, and then
give it to your users. Users do NOT need to know about the kinds of teeth
used in the gears for the car...

So, the two concepts of how relations works is that many of us just believe
that setting up a relation between two tables is a conceptual idea, and HAS
NOTING to do with the data that you need to store. Others would disagree on
this concept...

By the way, there are some STRONG augments for using natural keys. For
example, if I adopt a natural key in my data, then can freely move it
between TWO DIFFERENT systems that respect this approach. (of course, you
have to have those two systems respect that approach!!).


--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn




  #13  
Old July 12th, 2006, 09:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
Lyle Fairfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Primary Keys

LurfysMa wrote:
Most of the reference books recommend autonum primary keys, but the
Access help says that any unique keys will work.

What are the tradeoffs?

I have several tables that have unique fields. Can I use them as
primary keys or should I define an autonum primary key?

One table has information about the 50 states in the US. The table
looks like this:

State Capitol Date Admitted
Alabama Montgomery December 14, 1819
Alaska Juneau January 3, 1959
Arizona Phoenix February 14, 1912

Since the state names are unique, is there any reason not to make that
field the primary key?

Another table has to do with grade school multiplication tables. This
is a simple table something like this:

Factors Answer
1x1 1
2x1 2
2x2 4
3x1 3
3x2 6
3x3 9
...
12x1 12
12x2 24
...
12x12 144

Here again, the Factors field (a text field) is unique. Is there any
reason not to use it as the primary key?

In both cases, the tables are small, so adding another 4-byte field is
no big deal, but I'd like to keep the tables as simple as possible
unless there is some downside.

Thanks

--
Running MS Office 2000 Pro on Win2000


You could use whatever you want. IMO most of the criticism around this
topic involves autonumbers being used as the primary key, and in
addition, an attempt is made to use these autonumbers as ordinals,
perhaps sequential invoice numbers, rather than merely nominals,
identifiers of the records.
Many developers routinely create an autonumber ID in every table as
they create it. This, IMO, simplifies relationships (they are always
(ID, ID) where ID = ID), and ensures that a unique identifier exists
for each record, without concern for any meaning, duplication or
possible nullability of that identifier (Access forms often are not
updateable unless such an identifier exists).
But if one has the concepts and skill, other primary keys are fine. Of
course, many may not have the skill, and those who do will often choose
autonumbers to standardize their approach to this matter.
I use autonumbers. There are sufficient things to be planned and
decided about db design without including ... what will my primary keys
look like.

BTW, some think of Primary Key as something "special". A primary key is
simply the first created non-nullable unique index. Designating an
index as primary will move it to position one (or return an error). We
could easily do away with this term; I worked with indexes ( a thousand
times more powerful and useful than JET or SQL-Server indexes) for many
many years in the X-Base world without ever hearing it and I find no
particular value in its availability.

  #14  
Old July 12th, 2006, 10:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.access
LurfysMa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 190
Default Primary Keys

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:15:59 -0400, "Douglas J Steele"
wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate, at least two of the official provincial
abbreviations have changed in Canada in recent memory (Quebec used to be PQ,
and now is QC, Newfoundland and Labrador used to be NF, and now is NL). We
also got a 3rd territory a few years back, but an addition to the table
isn't as bad as a change to the PK.


OK, OK. I'm sold. I'll use an autonum field as the primary key. I
suppose the phonetic English movement could still gather steam and
California would become Kaliforia or something. ;-)

--
Running MS Office 2000 Pro on Win2000
  #15  
Old July 12th, 2006, 10:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
rkc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Primary Keys

LurfysMa wrote:
Most of the reference books recommend autonum primary keys, but the
Access help says that any unique keys will work.

What are the tradeoffs?


The tradeoff is that some people will think you're an
idiot if you use them and some people will think you're
an idiot if you don't.

As long as you understand that adding an autonumber
as a primary key has nothing to do with the normalization
process I think they are just fine.
  #16  
Old July 12th, 2006, 11:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
Tony Toews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 544
Default Primary Keys

RoyVidar wrote:

Just be aware - for some this isn't just a matter of preference, it's
religion to a degree thats close to fanatism.


chuckle

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
  #17  
Old July 13th, 2006, 10:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
hbinc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Primary Keys

Hi LurfysMa

Nice discussions.
Every record that has an relation with other records in other tables,
must have an unique identification, that used in all the relations. As
long as the "meaning" of the record stays the same, this identification
stays the same. Whether it is Autonumbering or Random or whatever is
not important, as long as it is unique.

Independant of the the identification is what you choose as Primary
Key. This may be your unique identification, but in fact can be any
combination of any fields, as long as they do not contain null-values.

But if you use a non-Autonumbering Primary Key, be sure that you use
your unique identification in your relations!

HBInc.



LurfysMa wrote:
Most of the reference books recommend autonum primary keys, but the
Access help says that any unique keys will work.

What are the tradeoffs?

I have several tables that have unique fields. Can I use them as
primary keys or should I define an autonum primary key?

One table has information about the 50 states in the US. The table
looks like this:

State Capitol Date Admitted
Alabama Montgomery December 14, 1819
Alaska Juneau January 3, 1959
Arizona Phoenix February 14, 1912

Since the state names are unique, is there any reason not to make that
field the primary key?

Another table has to do with grade school multiplication tables. This
is a simple table something like this:

Factors Answer
1x1 1
2x1 2
2x2 4
3x1 3
3x2 6
3x3 9
...
12x1 12
12x2 24
...
12x12 144

Here again, the Factors field (a text field) is unique. Is there any
reason not to use it as the primary key?

In both cases, the tables are small, so adding another 4-byte field is
no big deal, but I'd like to keep the tables as simple as possible
unless there is some downside.

Thanks

--
Running MS Office 2000 Pro on Win2000


  #18  
Old July 14th, 2006, 11:37 AM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
onedaywhen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Primary Keys


LurfysMa wrote:
Most of the reference books recommend autonum primary keys, but the
Access help says that any unique keys will work.

What are the tradeoffs?


That is a good question.

He's the position, as I see it, in brief.

Codd introduced the idea of a primary key. He later realised that all
keys are valid and that he was previously thinking non-relationally
when he assumed one key would need to be nominated as 'primary'.

RM theory has since moved on from the concept of primary keys. It was
too late for SQL, though: SQL vendors implemented primary keys,
assuming the PK would be given special meaning, and the concept of PKs
was retro-fitted to the SQL standards.

You can replace all your PRIMARY KEY constraints with NOT NULL UNIQUE
because they logically equivalent. This is what the Access help means
as referred to by the OP. However, in terms of physical SQL
implementation, PRIMARY KEY has been given special meaning. This is why
you are (correctly) still urged to designate a PRIMARY KEY for all your
tables.

What few people tell you is *how* to choose the PK.

What it comes down to is this: for Access/Jet, what does PRIMARY KEY
give you that NOT NULL UNIQUE does not? What is the special meaning for
the particular product, Access/Jet?

The answer, for Access/Jet the PK determines the (non-maintained)
clustered index, the physical ordering on disk.

So the next question is: what makes the best clustered index? The
answer to this is that a clustered index favours BETWEEN clauses and
GROUP BY clauses in SQL DML (queries, etc). In other words, your choice
of PK in SQL DDL (design) is driven by you SQL DML (queries). The
paradox here is that you can't write SQL DML before you've written your
SQL DDL, so you need to keep your PK's under review.

If you've understood the above you should come to the conclusion that a
sole autonumber column will never make a good PRIMARY KEY in
Access/Jet, because a random/incrementing integer/GUID does not make a
good clustered index. I'd suggest that anyone who uses their autonumber
column in a BETWEEN or GROUP BY construct has got something wrong in
design and/or queries. I'd further suggest that anyone who uses BETWEEN
or GROUP BY constructs which do not include columns that comprise their
PKs are likely to have made a poor choice of PK.

Jamie.

--

  #19  
Old July 14th, 2006, 11:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
Lyle Fairfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Primary Keys

onedaywhen wrote:
The answer, for Access/Jet the PK determines the (non-maintained)
clustered index, the physical ordering on disk.


Can you verify this?

  #20  
Old July 14th, 2006, 12:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.access,comp.databases.ms-access
Lyle Fairfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Primary Keys

onedaywhen wrote:

What it comes down to is this: for Access/Jet, what does PRIMARY KEY
give you that NOT NULL UNIQUE does not? What is the special meaning for
the particular product, Access/Jet?

The answer, for Access/Jet the PK determines the (non-maintained)
clustered index, the physical ordering on disk.


From

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wd9d69b1.aspx

THE CLUSTERED PROPERTY IS IGNORED FOR DATABASES THAT USE THE MICROSOFT
JET DATABASE ENGINE BECAUSE THE JET DATABASE ENGINE DOES NOT SUPPORT
CLUSTERED INDEXES.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.