Menu
This may be a pretty naive and stupid question, but I'm going to ask it anyway
I have a table with several fields, none of which are unique, and a primary key, which obviously is.
This table is accessed via the non-unique fields regularly, but no user SP or process access data via the primary key. Is the primary key necessary then? Is it used behind the scenes? Will removing it affect performance Positively or Negatively?
407
Every table should have some column (or set of columns) that uniquely identifies one and only one row. It makes it much easier to maintain the data. It's true, without a primary key (or some unique key), you don't have an insertion anomaly if you go to insert the same data multiple times.
Without the primary key and closely related foreign key concepts, relational databases would not work. In fact, since a table can easily contain thousands of records (including duplicates), a primary key is necessary to ensure that a table record can always be uniquely identified.
The PRIMARY KEY constraint uniquely identifies each record in a table. Primary keys must contain UNIQUE values, and cannot contain NULL values. A table can have only ONE primary key; and in the table, this primary key can consist of single or multiple columns (fields).
Necessary? No. Used behind the scenes? Well, it's saved to disk and kept in the row cache, etc. Removing will slightly increase your performance (use a watch with millisecond precision to notice).
But ... the next time someone needs to create references to this table, they will curse you. If they are brave, they will add a PK (and wait for a long time for the DB to create the column). If they are not brave or dumb, they will start creating references using the business key (i.e. the data columns) which will cause a maintenance nightmare.
Conclusion: Since the cost of having a PK (even if it's not used ATM) is so small, let it be.
160
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
