I want to clear something up here, and preface with the fact that I am not a database developer myself and may have this wrong. That said I think the use of the term “primary key” here is incorrect. The “primary key” is the unique identifier used to refer to each record. The name fields in Fibery are not forced to be unique, and so could not be used this way. I am drawing my understanding of Primary Keys from Wikipedia, among other sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_key
If I’m not mistaken there is a truly unique identifier for each record (entity). Some type of “unique” identifier can be seen in the upper-left of Entity views and reflected in the URL schema, although I suspect there are more sophisticated (and truly unique) identifiers behind-the-scenes, internal to Fibery.
For example, I have a task: “Once proforma is finalized, check against operating agreement ownership, discuss if needed”
This is #121 as identified at the top-left of the Entity view.
The URL to this task is this, in part:
I can change the name of it and it doesn’t mess up any relationships to this entity, the URL changes but keeps the 121 (minor name change for illustration purposes only):
I am guessing that the numeric identifiers may be unique within each type, but you may have overlapping numbers in other types. I’m not certain of that, but it seems to be the case for some tests on my end.
So I just point all this out because I do think having common understanding of the terminology is critical to correctly expressing and interpreting the needs outlined here. And I don’t think the real issue in this case is what field is being used as a “primary key”, but rather about what fields are displayed, and (relatedly) how things are named. On what basis they are associated does not seem to be the problem, as far as I can see. Unless I’m misunderstanding, which is entirely possible.
Would appreciate some correction/clarification from @mdubakov or someone else on the Fibery team as to how Fibery’s unique IDs/primary keys may work, if different from what I’ve stated above.