From: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Craig A. James <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
Cc: PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
Cc: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Sakai <rodrigo.sakai@zanthus.com.br>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FOREIGN KEYS vs PERFORMANCE
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:59:14 -0500
Message-ID: <20060412205914.GL49405@pervasive.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <443D3A9C.40106@modgraph-usa.com>
References: <001301c65d9c$08884ef0$4700a8c0@TREEZANTHUS>
<72C39159-1A4B-4595-A978-1DF57AD42527@myrealbox.com>
<op.s7vv4ex2cigqcu@apollo13>
<443D127D.2070601@modgraph-usa.com>
<20060412153951.GH49405@pervasive.com>
<443D3A9C.40106@modgraph-usa.com>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 10:36:28AM -0700, Craig A. James wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >>1. You have only one application that modifies the data. (Otherwise, you
> >>have to duplicate the rules across many applications, leading to a
> >>code-maintenance nightmare).
> >
> >You forgot something:
> >
> >1a: You know that there will never, ever, ever, ever, be any other
> >application that wants to talk to the database.
> >
> >I know tons of people that get burned because they go with something
> >that's "good enough for now", and then regret that decision for years to
> >come.
>
> No, I don't agree with this. Too many people waste time designing for
> "what if..." scenarios that never happen. You don't want to be dumb and
> design something that locks out a foreseeable and likely future need, but
> referential integrity doesn't meet this criterion. There's nothing to keep
> you from changing from app-managed to database-managed referential
> integrity if your needs change.
In this case your argument makes no sense, because you will spend far
more time re-creating RI capability inside an application than if you
just use what the database offers natively.
It's certainly true that you don't want to over-engineer for no reason,
but many times choices are made to save a very small amount of time or
hassle up-front, and those choices become extremely painful later.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jnasby@pervasive.com, cjames@modgraph-usa.com, lists@peufeu.com, grzm@myrealbox.com, rodrigo.sakai@zanthus.com.br
Subject: Re: FOREIGN KEYS vs PERFORMANCE
In-Reply-To: <20060412205914.GL49405@pervasive.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox