Re: Tables Larger When using DBMS_REDEFINITION
From: Mladen Gogala <mgogala_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:16:41 -0500
Message-ID: <54EB2839.6010500_at_yahoo.com>
On 02/23/2015 03:54 AM, Dave.Noble_at_wolseley.com wrote:
>
> No primary key - maybe a fact table on a DataWarehouse? Maybe
> something else that you haven’t thought about?
>
Nope. Even for a data warehouse application, it is necessary to distinguish among the rows in the table and prevent duplicate rows. Without the primary key, it is simply impossible to distinguish between rows in the table.
>
> And I’m afraid that “application designer should be water boarded” is
> extremely offensive on so many levels. Please will you keep those
> comments to yourself?
>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:16:41 -0500
Message-ID: <54EB2839.6010500_at_yahoo.com>
On 02/23/2015 03:54 AM, Dave.Noble_at_wolseley.com wrote:
>
> No primary key - maybe a fact table on a DataWarehouse? Maybe
> something else that you haven’t thought about?
>
Nope. Even for a data warehouse application, it is necessary to distinguish among the rows in the table and prevent duplicate rows. Without the primary key, it is simply impossible to distinguish between rows in the table.
>
> And I’m afraid that “application designer should be water boarded” is
> extremely offensive on so many levels. Please will you keep those
> comments to yourself?
>
It was, of course, a joke. For which I will not apologize, because I don't find it offensive to anyone, in any shape or form. I would have replied in private, had it not been for the primary key issue. Please, do the same because this type of comments do not belong to the list. I have a slight feeling that the real purpose of your email is to express outrage over my quite harmless joke.
Best regards,
-- Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA http://mgogala.freehostia.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Feb 23 2015 - 14:16:41 CET