←back to thread

60 points Bogdanp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.605s | source
Show context
aidos ◴[] No.44609465[source]
I’ve done a lot of interviewing and I’ve discovered that many devs (even experienced ones) don’t understand the difference between indexes and foreign keys.

My assumption is that people have used orms that automatically add the index for you when you create a relationship so they just conflate them all. Often they’ll say that a foreign key is needed to improve the performance and when you dig into it, their mental model is all wrong. The sense they have is that the other table gets some sort of relationship array structure to make lookups fast.

It’s an interesting phenomenon of the abstraction.

Don’t get me wrong, I love sqlalchemy and alembic but probably because I understand what’s happening underneath so I know the right way to hold it so things are efficient and migrations are safe.

replies(5): >>44609923 #>>44610030 #>>44610036 #>>44611356 #>>44611914 #
bevr1337 ◴[] No.44610030[source]
> their mental model is all wrong.

Is it? In Postgres, all FK references must be to a column with a PK or unique constraint or part of another index. Additionally, Postgres and Maria (maybe all SQL?) automatically create indexes for PKs and unique constraints. There's a high likelihood that a foreign key is already indexed _in the other table_.

Generally, I agree with your statement. Adding a FK won't magically improve performance or create useful indices. But, the presence of a FK or refactoring to support a FK does (tangentially) point back to that index.

replies(3): >>44610282 #>>44610714 #>>44610850 #
1. ak39 ◴[] No.44610282[source]
By definition, a FK has to reference a PK in the “parent”.
replies(1): >>44610905 #
2. aidos ◴[] No.44610905[source]
Not quite. It can reference any combination of columns with a unique index (of with the PK is by definition).