In data modeling, do surrogate keys (system-generated identifiers) carry meaningful information for end users, or are they intentionally devoid of business meaning?

Introduction / Context:
Choosing primary keys is central to relational design. Surrogate keys and natural keys behave differently. This item checks whether you recognize that surrogate keys are deliberately non-semantic identifiers, created to uniquely identify rows without encoding business meaning.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A surrogate key is typically an integer or UUID generated by the system.
• Natural keys are based on business attributes (e.g., email, SKU).
• End users value stable, interpretable attributes, not arbitrary IDs.

Concept / Approach:
Surrogate keys are non-meaningful by design. They simplify joins, avoid composite keys, and remain stable even when business attributes change. End users usually do not interpret them; instead, users rely on descriptive columns (names, codes) for meaning. Therefore, the statement that surrogate keys “have much meaning for users” is false.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Survey user-facing reports: they display names/codes, not internal row IDs. Database metadata also treats surrogate keys as opaque identifiers.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Correct” contradicts the purpose of surrogates.
• “Meaningful only in reporting” or “after indexing” conflates performance with semantics.
• “Meaningful only to the database engine” still implies meaning; engines use them for identity, not semantics.

Common Pitfalls:
Mistaking human-readable sequences (e.g., invoice numbers) for surrogates; conflating usability (short numbers) with semantic meaning; exposing surrogate keys in public APIs unintentionally.

Final Answer:
Incorrect