3,908 karma · joined June 14, 2009
ebellani -at- gmail -dot- com
http://github.com/ebellani/
Relations, attributes and tuples are logical. A PK is a combination of one or more attributes representing a name that uniquely identifies tuples and, thus, is logical too[2], while performance is determined exclusively at the physical level, by implementation.
So generating SKs for performance reasons (see, for example, Natural versus Surrogate Keys: Performance and Usability, Performance of Surrogate Key vs Composite Keys) is logical-physical confusion (LPC)[3]. Performance can be considered in PK choice only when there is no logical reason for choosing one key over another.
https://www.dbdebunk.com/2018/04/a-new-understanding-of-keys...
Why not?
If you can talk about a business rule, you have a predicate. If you have a predicate, you can make it 5 or 6 normal form, since all that means is that your relation expresses only and completely the predicate.
It seems that your definition of normalization is not the one that I am using above. What is it?
> Say we want to use a bigint key vs a VARCHAR(30)? depending on your big key you might be talking about terabytes of additional data, just to store a key (1t rows @ bigint = 8TB, 1T rows at 30 chars? 30TB...). The data also is going to constantly shuffle (random inserts).
>> Joins, lookups, indexes
I don't see how what you brought up has anything to do with these.
But the main point is being missed here because of a physical vs logical conflation anyhow.
I don't think I said that errors would not happen.
I'm curious, where else would they be used?
I struggle to see a practical example.
> - Idempotency. Allowing a client to generate IDs can be a big help here (ie UUIDs)
Natural keys solves this
> - Sharing. You may want to share a URL to something that requires the key, but not expose domain data (a URL to a user’s profile image shouldn’t expose their national ID).
The you have another piece of data, which you relate to the natural key. Something like `exposed-name`.
> There is not one solution that handles all of these well
Natural keys solve these issues.
> Also, we all know that stakeholders will absolutely swear that there will never be two people with the same national ID. Oh, except unless someone died, then we may reuse their ID. Oh, and sometimes this remote territory has duplicate IDs with the mainland. Oh, and for people born during that revolution 50 years ago, we just kinda had to make stuff up for them.
If this happens, the designer had a error in his design, and should extend the design to accommodate the facts that escaped him at design time.
> Actually, the article is proposing a new principle
I'm putting it in words, but such knowledge has been common in the database community for ages, afaict.
Location: EST
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: F#, C#, C, PostgreSQL, Java, Clojure, Common Lisp, Scheme, Emacs Lisp, SQL, Python, Ruby, JS, AWS, Linux
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-bellani/
Email: ebellani -@- gmail.com Location: EST
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: F#, C#, C, PostgreSQL, Java, Clojure, Common Lisp, Scheme, Emacs Lisp, SQL, Python, Ruby, JS, AWS, Linux
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-bellani/
Email: ebellani -@- gmail.com Location: EST
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: F#, C#, C, PostgreSQL, Java, Clojure, Common Lisp, Scheme, Emacs Lisp, SQL, Python, Ruby, JS, AWS, Linux
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-bellani/
Email: ebellani -@- gmail.comhttps://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/1209/pdfs...
Postgres itself has not yet added such to the core, since it moves about as fast as an elephant. There are extensions that do implement it (https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Temporal_Extensions).
TLDR: Not a good idea.
I don't see much difference in complexity between the affected software and the several existing formally verified software. At the very least the parser/interpreter could very much be formally verified.
But my point is, have they tried? They don't seem to be even aware of such.
Location: EST
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: F#, PostgreSQL, Clojure, Common Lisp, SQL, Python, Ruby, JS
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-bellani/
Email: ebellani -@- gmail.com- Willing to relocate :: Yes
- Technologies :: Clojure, Python, Ruby, Java, Dart, Common Lisp, Scheme, Ocaml, F#, Haskell, Rust, C#, C, C++, Docker, Kubernetes, SQL (Postgres, etc), Linux, Nix, QubesOS
- Résumé/CV :: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-bellani
- Email :: ebellani@gmail.com
I can help you by:
- Architecting immutable architectures,
- to recruit, train, motivate and lead high performing people,
- program, deploy and maintain code in imperative and functional programming languages (Lisp flavors, ML, C like languages, etc).
I have been involved in the world of technology startups for more than 15 years. As developer, manager, entrepreneur, director. Mostly with functional programming and research oriented projects/companies
- Remote :: Yes
- Willing to relocate :: Yes
- Technologies :: Clojure, Python, Ruby, Java, Dart, Common Lisp, Scheme, Ocaml, F#, Haskell, Rust, C#, C, C++, Docker, Kubernetes, SQL (Postgres, etc), Linux, Nix, QubesOS
- Résumé/CV :: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardo-bellani
- Email :: ebellani@gmail.com
I can help you by:
- Architecting immutable architectures,
- to recruit, train, motivate and lead high performing people,
- program, deploy and maintain code in imperative and functional programming languages (Lisp flavors, ML, C like languages, etc).
I have been involved in the world of technology startups for more than 15 years. As developer, manager, entrepreneur, director. Mostly with functional programming and research oriented projects/companies.