On the current project we have a division between two groups on what type of key structure we should use in the database.

I am on the side of using surrogate (also called natural keys) with hibernate or any database access tool.

Using surrogate keys is very simple in my java applications since hibernate takes care of the magic to persist the data. On ther other side, I have to create extra java code in order to build the key and persist.

I seek your opinion for either side of the case.

If you think that a surrogate key is a natural key, you have something completely wrong.

I realize my mistake in swtiching terminology I meant to say:

I am on the side of using surrogate with hibernate or any database access tool.

Which is a good idea for obvious reasons: stability, null-safe, durable, etc.

The question should be: what could natural keys possibly do better? I doubt that you will find many satisfying answers to that question.

Lazyness. It still happen to me... sometimes ;-)

Natural vs surrogate has been widely debated and both sides have their point.


The real question is should a single key be used versus a concatenated key. For example:

Table 1
table_1_id PK (surrogate)

Table 2
table_2_id PK (surrogate)

Table 3
table_3_id PK (surrogate)

Table 4
table_1_id PK
table_2_id PK
table_3_id PK

NOTE: Table 4 is a composite key

Then if you want to create a relationship to table 4 you have to carry the three columns of the composite key.

Table 5
table_5_id PK
table_1_id FK
table_2_id FK
table_3_id FK

Yes, and? If that represents your relationships and multiplicity, why not?