Re: General question about fk constraints ... thanx

From: Jan Gelbrich <j_gelbrich_at_westfalen-blatt.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:24:38 +0100
Message-ID: <b28g9q$19i3pt$1@ID-152732.news.dfncis.de>

Hi, Ethel,

"Ethel Aardvark" <bigjobbies_at_hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1a8fec49.0302100708.3e7cce24_at_posting.google.com...
> FK constraints are an overhead but they are miniscule.
> What is a *far* bigger overhead is the debugging and fixing of obscure
> bugs in applications written for schemas which do not use FK
> constraints.
> The reason for this is simple - without FX constraints, applications
> which break the relational model will leave the database in a mucky
> state until years later when some poor sod (me) discovers the
> inconsistency.
>
> It is FAR better for applications to fall over at the point of failure
> rather than at the point of discovery!
>
> In summary: FK constraints are good!
>

personally I am favoring fk constraints, too. Exactly this is why I was wondering
why they are so rarely to find out there - Niall gave me a good answer by re-interpreting RAD ...

ThanX Received on Mon Feb 10 2003 - 09:24:38 CST