Re: RI - pros and cons

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:59:22 -0500, Peter Sylvester <peters_at_mitre.org> wrote:

>If the application is implemented correctly, it should not be apparent
>whether RI exists in the DB or not. Putting it in the DB will keep the
>application honest. From what I have seen, without RI in the database,
>you can kiss integrity good-bye.
>
>-Peter
>
>Ed Stevens wrote:
>>
>> I feel stupid even posting this question but there's trouble brewing in River
>> City. I'm getting caught between my "partner" DBA (with whom I have many
>> philosophical differences) and the developers.
>>
>> New application being developed. Four rather simple tables - header data,
>> detail data, and a couple of reference/look-up tables. Developers want RI and I
>> agree. DBA says "RI is more trouble than its' worth. You should take care of
>> it in your application." I'm caught in the middle, stongly disagreeing (that's
>> putting it diplomaticly) with the other DBA but having to maintain a working
>> relationship. He makes the claim "all the other DBA's I read on MetaLink say RI
>> is too much trouble" but won't produce evidence.
>>
>> Anyone want to comment on the technical merits of RI vs. not. I've always felt
>> that the benefits of RI (and normalized tables) was so obvious as to not even
>> require any further justification. Do I need to be re-educated, or . . . .

Which is exactly my postion. But the other DBA keeps claiming that RI is "more trouble than it is worth" and that his position is backed up by "many other DBA's" He won't give any specifics about the downside to RI, so I thought I'd ask here if anyone knows of any downsides. I think he's just blowing smoke, but I wanted to make sure I'd done MY research to eliminate the chance that I might be overlooking something myself.

--
Ed Stevens
(Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)