除了这些好答案，我想分享一篇我刚读过的好文章，伟大的主键辩论。

这里引用几点:

开发人员在为每个表选择主键时必须应用一些规则:

主键必须唯一地标识每条记录。 记录的主键值不能为空。 在创建记录时，主键-值必须存在。 主键必须保持稳定—您不能更改主键字段。 主键必须紧凑且包含尽可能少的属性。 主键值不能更改。

自然键(倾向于)打破规则。代理键符合规则。(你最好通读那篇文章，它值得你花时间!)

这只是对一些经常被忽视的东西的额外评论。有时不使用单个代理键作为主键对子表有好处。假设我们有一种设计，允许您在一个数据库中运行多个公司(可能是一个托管解决方案，或者其他什么)。

假设我们有这些表和列:

Company:
  CompanyId   (primary key)

CostCenter:
  CompanyId   (primary key, foreign key to Company)
  CostCentre  (primary key)

CostElement
  CompanyId   (primary key, foreign key to Company)
  CostElement (primary key)

Invoice:
  InvoiceId    (primary key)
  CompanyId    (primary key, in foreign key to CostCentre, in foreign key to CostElement)
  CostCentre   (in foreign key to CostCentre)
  CostElement  (in foreign key to CostElement)

以防最后一点说不通，发票。CompanyId是两个外键的一部分，一个指向CostCentre表，另一个指向CostElement表。主键是(InvoiceId, CompanyId)。

在这个模型中，不可能搞砸并引用来自一个公司的CostElement和来自另一个公司的CostCentre。如果在CostElement和CostCentre表上使用一个代理键作为主键，并且在Invoice表中没有外键关系，那么它就是。

搞砸的机会越少越好。

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。

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.

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