|
|
Posted by Cecil on 12/28/05 16:38
>>I don't see the purpose of the ID column? Why not make the name the primary
>>key?
I was thinking of doing that, but I intend for the Logon table to be
like an ID card. Only for efficient identification. I wanted to reuse
this table design in multiple projects that would require
authentication.
So if I later had an employee say, that needs to login, rather than add
a username,password to the Employee table I could simply add a LogonID
field to the employee table to link it w/ their identification record
in the Logon table.
Do you think this is a bad idea?
Also I thought it would be faster to always use an int ID as my primary
key instead of a string for searching and joining.
If I were to have a foreign key linking to the logon table I'd have to
stick the whole string as the foreign key instead of just an int. So it
was my plan to make sure each table had an int primary key even if it
was possible to uniquely id a record by an already present column like
username.
Again, do you think this is a bad idea? What would you name the foreign
key to a varchar username field? usernameID? It just seems like it
should be a number to me if it has ID appended to it. I like using ID
becuase I know it is a key of somekind when I see it but maybe I
shouldn't do that.
I was reading a post by someone earlier who suggested to me that all
field names be unique across my schema. So if I understand him
correctly:
LogonID, LogonName, & LogonPassword would be better field names.
LogonPassword seems sorta like overkill compared to just password but
if you're going to be unique you might have another field called
password in another table so I guess you'd have to do it that way.
Almost like table-qualifying each field name.
I'm starting a simple DB from scratch so I'm trying to use as good a
practices as I can and would be very interested in your reccomendations
Erland. Thanks.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|