Composite Key vs. Surrogate Key

Moderator: NorbertKrupa

NorbertKrupa
GURU
GURU
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:36 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Composite Key vs. Surrogate Key

Post by NorbertKrupa » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:04 pm

sKwa wrote:I did a test - and its a fact and nothing else, I do not write my opinion. Its your point doesn't prove nothing - because its an opinion.
Could you kindly share these results? Specifically timings, data set sizes, and execution plans.
Checkout vertica.tips for more Vertica resources.

id10t
GURU
GURU
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Composite Key vs. Surrogate Key

Post by id10t » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:27 am

Hi!

[DELETED]
Last edited by id10t on Wed May 06, 2015 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NorbertKrupa
GURU
GURU
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:36 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Composite Key vs. Surrogate Key

Post by NorbertKrupa » Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:19 pm

This isn't a competition. We're trying to understand your argument and are asking how you came to that conclusion (by showing us some empirical results).

I would recommend reading section 5.2 of materialization strategies for column-oriented DBMS and materialization strategies in Vertica.
Checkout vertica.tips for more Vertica resources.

scutter
Master
Master
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 am

Re: Composite Key vs. Surrogate Key

Post by scutter » Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:06 pm

I haven’t done a performance analysis of composite keys vs surrogate keys. But I have seen a case where a customer didn’t have a primary key in a table so was using all columns in the join to identify differences between record sets. So there were probably ~20 columns used in the join, using the <=> operator as well. This join was horrifically slow, even as a merge join.

—Sharon
Sharon Cutter
Vertica Consultant, Zazz Technologies LLC

Post Reply

Return to “New to Vertica Database Administration”