Talk:Composite key

Untitled
I think this page is very unhelpful unless you know full database terminology, in which case you wouldn't need to look it up. Can someone put up an example that would give a normal person an idea of what this is? --67.125.22.141 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree. An example is definitely needed here; especially since the page for Primary/Unique Key has examples for its definition, yet this page is pretty useless if you need to see a specific example of a compound key in relation to a table or tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.15 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF is a simple key?
WTF is a simple key? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.115.100 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EDIT*: Eh... they explain what it is, but I've never heard that used anywhere.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.115.100 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of achademic references use simple key or simple attribute to represent a single component with an independent execution. One being the well regarded Connnnolly.T, Begg.C. (2010) 'Database Systems: A practical Approach to Design, implementation, and Management' Fifth Edition. Adison-Wesley p.329. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProcerusDecor (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend merge with Unique key
This is, at best, a paragraph or two worth of information that should be presented in a subsection of the Unique key article. Recommend merging this article into that one. 69.116.234.82 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the creation of a Key(database) artical which contains both of the suggested files.--140.192.124.43 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to a site that lists all the keys in summary. Would it not be better to have all RDBMS key references as a single page not just add this to the Unigue key. and have each of the terms asa sub reference as suggested? I hope the added link is useful. Also on the site is a terms of reference section. Again is it worth lifting this and other pages in Wikipedia to a single terms of reference page? ProcerusDecor (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that unique key page not be amended with this information. Instead the aforementioned key database page should be used to combine all key field information pages together for the user to better find the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.237.188 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be added to unique key, but combined with an RDBS Terminology page or a page on keys. Uniqueness is not a relevant distinction between compound and composite keys. Also: students with only just enough database knowledge to be dangerous frequently confuse these terms (compound and composite) or use them interchangeably, so the couple of paragraphs certainly have some merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.83.71.238 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Compound key
1. It seems wrong that a compound key is made up of simple keys, as a compound key is itself a minimal superkey, e.g. any of its proper subsets must not be a simple key. From what the example below suggests, it's more plausible to say that a compound key is made up of two or more foreign keys (that are not simple keys, but it's almost always the case I guess ?).

2. It's also odd to write "simple (foreign) keys": they are not synonyms.

According to the two points above, I permit myself to change "simple (foreign) keys" to "foreign keys". As I'm by no means a DB expert, feel free to rollback or make it clearer. Unfortunately, I don't have references to support my thoughts, but something definitely goes wrong in the first point. FirminMartin (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)