Re: Why is database integrity so impopular ?

From: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

On Oct 6, 12:51 pm, Daniel Pitts
<> wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > When time comes to build transactional databases (as opposed to data
> > wharehouses), I belong to the school that STRONGLY believe in
> > normalizing data with high integrity mechanisms. I know all the
> > performance cons but IMHO, pros largely overwhelme.
> > It amazes me, though, how many systems rely on the application to
> > manage data integrity. I work as IT director for a large-size
> > manufacturer and *none* of our applications use integrity. And I am
> > talking here of ERP and other mission-critical systems.
> > In fact, I had rarely open a database properly normalized and
> > inforced ... and I have been working with databases for over 10 years,
> > mostly in sectors where lack of integrity can result in dramatic
> > consequences.
> > What is wrong with modern DB design approaches? And what's the point
> > of using a big relational DB without the benefits of integrity and
> > normalization?
> > Thank you,
> > EBL
> I think that part of the problem is DB design and Application design are
> really different types of abstraction. For application programmers,
> dealing with DB constraints is tedious.
> The truth is that whenever your "Application" calls for persistence, it
> is no longer just an "Application"; it has become a "System". System
> design is a higher level abstraction.
> Moving from Application design to System design is /almost/ a natural
> progression, and many engineers traverse the barrier without ever
> realizing and without learning the other aspects of System design. This
> includes learning proper DB design.
> I admit that I fell into that category for some time. My background has
> been Application design, but I've started to appreciate the concept of
> constraints at ever level of the System. I even sometimes wish that the
> DB could do more validation than it does, even if it makes things a
> little more "tedious". In this case, tedious just means the hard
> problem is already solved.
> --
> Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <>

I think that relational database theory is too limitting for some applications. I believe that the modern database needs to be split into component parts so that not everyone has to be saddled with the relational part. Received on Fri Oct 31 2008 - 20:58:58 CET

Original text of this message