从不同的字段中创建主键是没有问题的，这是一个自然键。

您可以使用Identity列(与候选字段上的唯一索引相关联)来创建代理键。

这是一个古老的讨论。在大多数情况下，我更喜欢代理键。

但是没有钥匙是没有理由的。

再保险:编辑

是的，关于这一点有很多争议:D

我没有看到任何明显的优势自然键，除了他们是自然的选择。你总是会用Name、SocialNumber或者类似的东西来思考，而不是idPerson。

代理键可以解决自然键存在的一些问题(例如传播更改)。

当你习惯了代理，它似乎更干净，更易于管理。

但最终，你会发现这只是一个品味或心态的问题。有些人用自然的钥匙能“更好地思考”，而其他人则不然。

自然键和人工键是数据库社区中的一种宗教争论——请参阅本文及其链接的其他文章。我既不赞成一直使用人工钥匙，也不赞成永远不使用。我会根据具体情况做出决定，例如:

美国各州:我会使用state_code(德克萨斯州的'TX'等)，而不是德克萨斯州的state_id=1 员工:我通常会创建一个人工的employee_id，因为很难找到其他任何工作。SSN或同等的工作，但可能会有问题，如新加入谁还没有提供他/她的SSN。 员工薪资历史:(employee_id, start_date)。我不会创建一个人工的employee_salary_history_id。它能起到什么作用(除了“愚蠢的一致性”)

无论在哪里使用人工键，都应该始终在自然键上声明唯一的约束。例如，如果你必须使用state_id，但是你最好在state_code上声明一个唯一的约束，否则你最终肯定会得到:

state_id    state_code   state_name
137         TX           Texas
...         ...          ...
249         TX           Texas

所有表都应该有一个主键。否则，您所拥有的就是一个HEAP——在某些情况下，这可能就是您想要的(当数据通过服务代理复制到另一个数据库或表时，会产生大量插入负载)。

对于行数较少的查找表，可以使用3 CHAR代码作为主键，因为这比INT占用的空间更少，但性能差异可以忽略不计。除此之外，我总是使用INT，除非您有一个引用表，它可能有一个由相关表的外键组成的复合主键。

我总是使用自动编号或标识字段。

我曾经为一个客户工作，他使用SSN作为主键，然后由于HIPAA法规被迫更改为“MemberID”，这在更新相关表中的外键时引起了大量问题。坚持一致的标识列标准帮助我在所有项目中避免了类似的问题。

GUID可以用作主键，但是您需要创建正确类型的GUID，这样它才能正常运行。

您需要生成COMB guid。一篇关于它和性能统计的好文章是 guid作为主键的代价。

此外，在SQL中构建COMB guid的一些代码是在Uniqueidentifier vs identity(存档)中。

主键有什么特别之处?

模式中表的用途是什么?表中键的作用是什么?主键有什么特别之处?围绕主键的讨论似乎忽略了一点，即主键是表的一部分，而表是模式的一部分。对表和表关系最有利的应该驱动所使用的键。

Tables (and table relationships) contain facts about information you wish to record. These facts should be self-contained, meaningful, easily understood, and non-contradictory. From a design perspective, other tables added or removed from a schema should not impact on the table in question. There must be a purpose for storing the data related only to the information itself. Understanding what is stored in a table should not require undergoing a scientific research project. No fact stored for the same purpose should be stored more than once. Keys are a whole or part of the information being recorded which is unique, and the primary key is the specially designated key that is to be the primary access point to the table (i.e. it should be chosen for data consistency and usage, not just insert performance).

ASIDE: The unfortunately side effect of most databases being designed and developed by application programmers (which I am sometimes) is that what is best for the application or application framework often drives the primary key choice for tables. This leads to integer and GUID keys (as these are simple to use for application frameworks) and monolithic table designs (as these reduce the number of application framework objects needed to represent the data in memory). These application driven database design decisions lead to significant data consistency problems when used at scale. Application frameworks designed in this manner naturally lead to table at a time designs. “Partial records” are created in tables and data filled in over time. Multi-table interaction is avoided or when used causes inconsistent data when the application functions improperly. These designs lead to data that is meaningless (or difficult to understand), data spread over tables (you have to look at other tables to make sense of the current table), and duplicated data.

It was said that primary keys should be as small as necessary. I would says that keys should be only as large as necessary. Randomly adding meaningless fields to a table should be avoided. It is even worse to make a key out of a randomly added meaningless field, especially when it destroys the join dependency from another table to the non-primary key. This is only reasonable if there are no good candidate keys in the table, but this occurrence is surely a sign of a poor schema design if used for all tables.

It was also said that primary keys should never change as updating a primary key should always be out of the question. But update is the same as delete followed by insert. By this logic, you should never delete a record from a table with one key and then add another record with a second key. Adding the surrogate primary key does not remove the fact that the other key in the table exists. Updating a non-primary key of a table can destroy the meaning of the data if other tables have a dependency on that meaning through a surrogate key (e.g. a status table with a surrogate key having the status description changed from ‘Processed’ to ‘Cancelled’ would definitely corrupt the data). What should always be out of the question is destroying data meaning.

Having said this, I am grateful for the many poorly designed databases that exist in businesses today (meaningless-surrogate-keyed-data-corrupted-1NF behemoths), because that means there is an endless amount of work for people that understand proper database design. But on the sad side, it does sometimes make me feel like Sisyphus, but I bet he had one heck of a 401k (before the crash). Stay away from blogs and websites for important database design questions. If you are designing databases, look up CJ Date. You can also reference Celko for SQL Server, but only if you hold your nose first. On the Oracle side, reference Tom Kyte.