Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 593803
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T15:53:05+00:00 2026-05-13T15:53:05+00:00

This question comes up after reading a comment in this question: Database Design When

  • 0

This question comes up after reading a comment in this question:

Database Design

When you create a many-to-many table, should you create a composite primary key on the two foreign key columns, or create a auto-increment surrogate “ID” primary key, and just put indexes on your two FK columns (and maybe a unique constraint)? What are the implications on performance for inserting new records/re-indexing in each case?

Basically, this:

PartDevice
----------
PartID (PK/FK)
DeviceID (PK/FK)

vs. this:

PartDevice
----------
ID (PK/auto-increment)
PartID (FK)
DeviceID (FK)

The commenter says:

making the two IDs the PK means the
table is physically sorted on the disk
in that order. So if we insert
(Part1/Device1), (Part1/Device2),
(Part2/Device3), then (Part 1/Device3)
the database will have to break the
table apart and insert the last one
between entries 2 and 3. For many
records, this becomes very problematic
as it involves shuffling hundreds,
thousands, or millions of records
every time one is added. By contrast,
an autoincrementing PK allows the new
records to be tacked on to the end.

The reason I’m asking is because I’ve always been inclined to do the composite primary key with no surrogate auto-increment column, but I’m not sure if the surrogate key is actually more performant.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T15:53:05+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 3:53 pm

    With a simple two-column many-to-many mapping, I see no real advantage to having a surrogate key. Having a primary key on (col1,col2) is guaranteed unique (assuming your col1 and col2 values in the referenced tables are unique) and a separate index on (col2,col1) will catch those cases where the opposite order would execute faster. The surrogate is a waste of space.

    You won’t need indexes on the individual columns since the table should only ever be used to join the two referenced tables together.

    That comment you refer to in the question is not worth the electrons it uses, in my opinion. It sounds like the author thinks the table is stored in an array rather than an extremely high performance balanced multi-way tree structure.

    For a start, it’s never necessary to store or get at the table sorted, just the index. And the index won’t be stored sequentially, it’ll be stored in an efficient manner to be able to be retrieved quickly.

    In addition, the vast majority of database tables are read far more often than written. That makes anything you do on the select side far more relevant than anything on the insert side.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 367k
  • Answers 367k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer <a href="{$videoId}">{$videoId}</a> You must use <xsl:value-of select="$videoId"/> here: <a href="{$videoId}"><xsl:value-of… May 14, 2026 at 4:57 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Well it all boiled down to the formatting of the… May 14, 2026 at 4:57 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer When would you use it? When you need it to… May 14, 2026 at 4:57 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.