← Back to team overview

drizzle-discuss team mailing list archive

Re: tables must have a primary key

 

Hi Stu

On 07/04/2010, at 3:50 PM, Stewart Smith wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:41:26 +0200, Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From observation, the appear to be other consequences to not
specifying a primary key for InnoDB, in terms of locking behaviour and
such.
So the implicit rowid/pk thing is, apparently, not quite equivalent.

my auto-increment implementation is quite different than the innobase
one.

Since we don't at all care about or support statement based replication,
we can be a lot more sane in locking (or lack thereof).

Although I'm not really caring about performance yet... in theory the
embedded_innodb auto increment implementation should be much better.


Please make a clear distinction in your head between PK and auto-inc.
We're here agreeing that all tables should have a PK.
They may or may not have an auto-inc field; some may just have an id which is a fk from another table's auto-inc, or a composite of multiple tables.


Regards,
Arjen.
--
Arjen Lentz, Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com)
Exceptional Services for MySQL at a fixed budget.

Follow our blog at http://openquery.com/blog/
OurDelta: packages for MySQL and MariaDB @ http://ourdelta.org












Follow ups

References