"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:3c7f6d8a$0$8509$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> "Ilya Zvyagin 2147483647" <ziv_at_fct.ru> wrote in message
> news:1014979926.653000_at_gatekeeper.fct.ru...
> > Hello, Nuno!
> > You wrote on Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:12:45 GMT:
> >
> > NS> What makes them more efficient by moving them away from the data
> > NS> they are supposed to keep the integrity of?
> >
> > Let's think of a situation when we need to add a new
> > domain to our relational DB with some very odd rules
> > for its possible values.
> >
> > F.e. ISO container numbers (what is familiar to me)
> > should have a verifying digit at the end.
> >
> > And please don't say anything about triggers.
>
> Why not? seems to me that a trigger encoding the validation logic is
> *exactly* what you would want here.
>
> The other logical place for this sort of validation might be in the
> presentation layer of the application, though I think it is not
unreasonable
> to suggest in this distributed world, and also to cope with people
inserting
> data other than through the app, that you'd want validation code to reside
> both at the data entry layer (to remind the users) *and* at the data layer
> to ensure data integrity.
>
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
> *****************************************
> Please include version and platform
> and SQL where applicable
> It makes life easier and increases the
> likelihood of a good answer
>
> ******************************************
>
PMFJI.
I know it's only an example, but in this case wouldn't a check constraint be
more efficient (and even nearer to the data)?
Paul
Received on Fri Mar 01 2002 - 13:07:12 CST
