Re: Integrity on large sites

-----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-----