Thank you for your support!  
UtterAccess HomeUtterAccess Wiki

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Edit Discussion
> Composite Indexes vs Composite Primary Keys    

Composite Indexes vs Composite Primary Keys
This page is a stub. Please help us by expanding or merging it with applicable content

Debatable Content

The subject of Natural keys versus Surrogate keys is much debated. Please help us by including both viewpoints with each method's pros and cons in the Natural Vs Surrogate Keys article.

You will often hear that Composite or Multi-field Primary Keys is a poor design technique and usually violates the 1st normal form of Normalization.[debatable]

Typically it is recommended to use a Composite Index instead to accomplish the effect of the combination of 2 or more fields to create a unique record.

The problem is it's not often explained how. The attached db does just that. It walks you through the design and functionality of the following:

  • Composite PK
  • Adding an Autonumber Field
  • Autonumber primary key and a Composite Index.

Media:CompositeIndexExample.zip
Media:CompositeIndexExample97.zip



This page was originally ported from the UtterAccess Forums. It is based heavily or in part on a post by J.D..
Composite Indexes vs. Composite Primary Keys

Edit Discussion
This page was last modified 11:52, 23 January 2012.  This page has been accessed 1,261 times.  Disclaimers