RE: Primary Keys optional?

  • From: "MacGregor, Ian A." <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <andert@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:11:10 -0700

Primary keys are becoming more and more important.  There are optimization 
enhancements which will depend on the primary key.  Perhaps some do even now, 
I'm nost sure.

Ian MacGregor 

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Allen, Brandon
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:29 PM
To: andert@xxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Primary Keys optional?

I'm not trying to promote the creation of tables w/o PKs, but just FYI -
I work with the Baan ERP application (you've probably never heard of it,
but I think they used to be #5 behind SAP, Oracle, etc. - Boeing is
their largest customer) and they do not use PKs or any RI in the
database - they use unique indexes with not null constraints, and they
manage all the RI w/in the application.  Not ideal, but I must admit
they've done a pretty good job of implementing it this way - it's never
caused us any problems in the 8yrs I've been working with it.  I've
heard that some of the other big ERPs (maybe even SAP - anyone know?)
are designed similarly.

Another thing to consider in letting the app manage the RI is that you
can't easily view the relationships for reporting purposes when trying
to use Crystal or some other 3rd party reporting tool.


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or 
attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.



Other related posts: