>>>Here at my job we have a database modeler in our group. He is insistent that all tables use 'Natural Keys' and not surrogate keys. I am not trying to start a battle or anything, but is this really even still a debate? It does not matter how much logical reason I provide him, he is propagating his plan across the company and it does not seem to matter what the impact will be. This is a global company in 140 countries with data centers all over the world.
>>>
>>>My only questions is: Has something changed and I missed it? We are talking about values that users see and will want to change being used as primary keys on the tables.
>>
>>Here I am not with Viv, as starting a battle on the guys home field is not smart, unless his position in the project/company already is shakey, but more along Dragans take on it.
>
>Maybe starting a battle was putting it a bit strongly. I don't know Tim's situation but I'd feel obliged by my responsibility to the company to argue against a bad decision.. I'd rather nail my flag to the mast - at least I'd not be blamed for being complicit in the choice.
>
>>
>>My idea would be to officially state in writing
>>that in your opinion surrogate keys are better and in the long run cheaper,
>>you discussed the topic with the person responsible
>>
>>and
>>sneak in somehow, again in writing known to ups and him, that any specific H the decision later adds to the project when such keys are changed, found to have duplicates and so on will be booked into his tasks alloted hours. Then wait and grin ;-)))

By battle, I was more concerned about a debate here on the two ideas. I was not sure if the ideas had changed and there were strong opinions both ways. I fully intend to make my concerns known. It may or may not make a change, but I want to be sure nobody can say - "nobody had any concerns".