Re: Multiple specification of constraints

"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kZ43c.22072$2a5.1534_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> "mountain man" <hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:xO43c.93799$Wa.34313_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > After all, the whole point of a DBMS is to have I/O.
>
> You're not really serious? In other words, as long as it's persisted, it
> doesn't matter what "it" is?

I'm not sure I understand what your saying.

What I am advocating is use of the database to hold all control data, validation data, constraints, etc. Where these are no longer held in the application code, this will imply physical RDBMS I/O in order that the application return them to the end user.

The original statement above might be paraphrased 'the whole point in having a DBMS is utilising it.'

> > Those who
> > dont want to "waste valuable i/o" on performing database constraint
> > or validation checking might consider allocating funds to a get better
> > CPU if the validation i/o is not quick enough for the users.
>
> If they don't want to waste time doing that, they probably really don't
want
> to waste time - and money - fixing the inevitable results of data
> corruption.

In the long run, this is correct. Received on Tue Mar 09 2004 - 13:38:28 CET