-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/23/07 20:29, Tom Allison wrote: [snip] > Bottom line, if the DBA or anyone says we can't support RI or UNIQUE > because of the performance overhead... I would be inclined to look for > another DBA. > But I have to admit. I am extremely opinionated about this as I'm the > guy who does most of the performance and metric reporting using these > horrid tables. > it does provide infinite job security, but it's hardly worth it in the > long run.
We must be the exception to the rule. In July 2005 we did a major long-weekend unload-reload archive of our big (400M row) toll tables. There was no RI on the tables, either PK or FK. When reloading the "keep" data, I created a PK (fortunately the hashed/clustered design of the table means that PK enforcement is almost zero-cost) and loaded the data. There were ZERO duplicates. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGVR0MS9HxQb37XmcRAsozAKC0TCPBjj0cO58SEHfZ0JDoMdWTUQCeNDLq Fa0x3oDJGTllIZ65dgdTUiY= =Kqex -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
