The 'downsides' are that you have to take care in your database design. You
have to code some more to ensure that any old rubbish doesn't get in there.
You have to document your system with (at least) an ERD. You have to
carefully define your business logic. Initial development time is thus
increased. The alternative is to just bung a few create table scripts
together stuff some data in and write some web pages to query the data and
do ad hoc inserts etc. This is commonly known as rapid application
development, or even better development in internet time.
--
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
******************************************.
"Ed Stevens" <spamdump_at_nospam.noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:3c99ea81.263986592_at_ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
> 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.)
Received on Fri Mar 22 2002 - 03:43:19 CST
