如果有天然钥匙，通常是最好的。因此，如果datetime/char唯一地标识了行，并且这两部分对行都有意义，那就太好了。

如果只有datetime是有意义的，并且只是附加了char以使其唯一，那么您不妨使用一个identify字段。

我将坦率地说明我对自然键的偏好——在可能的情况下使用它们，因为它们将使您的数据库管理工作更加容易。我在公司建立了一个标准，所有的表格都有以下列:

行ID (GUID) 创造者(字符串;有一个默认的当前用户名(SUSER_SNAME()在T-SQL)) 创建(DateTime) 时间戳

行ID在每个表上都有一个唯一的键，并且在任何情况下都是每行自动生成的(并且权限阻止任何人编辑它)，并且合理地保证在所有表和数据库中是唯一的。如果任何ORM系统都需要一个ID密钥，那么可以使用这个密钥。

同时，如果可能的话，实际的PK是一个自然的关键。我的内部规则是这样的:

人-使用代理键，例如INT。如果它是内部的，那么Active Directory用户GUID是一个可以接受的选择 查找表(例如StatusCodes) -使用短的CHAR代码;它比int更容易记住，在许多情况下，纸张表格和用户也会使用它来简洁(例如，Status = "E"表示"过期"，"A"表示"已批准"，"NADIS"表示"样品中未检测到石棉")。 链接表- fk的组合(例如EventId, AttendeeId)

因此，理想情况下，您最终会得到一个自然的、人类可读的和难忘的PK，以及一个orm友好的每个表一个id的GUID。

警告:我维护的数据库倾向于100,000条记录，而不是数百万或数十亿条记录，所以如果您有使用大型系统的经验，这不利于我的建议，请随意忽略我!

我怀疑原始数据结构的设计者需要Steven A. Lowe的卷起报纸疗法。

顺便说一句，guid作为主键可能会影响性能。我不推荐。

对我来说，自然键和人工键的区别在于数据库中需要多少业务逻辑。社会安全号码(SSN)就是一个很好的例子。

“我的数据库中的每个客户都将而且必须有SSN。”搞定，把它设为主键，搞定。只要记住，当你的业务规则改变时，你就完蛋了。

我自己不喜欢自然键，因为我有改变业务规则的经验。但是如果您确定它不会改变，那么它可能会阻止一些关键的连接。

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.

您应该使用由多个字段组成的“复合”或“复合”主键。

这是一个完全可以接受的解决方案，点击这里了解更多信息:)