| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
 Posted - 06 October 2002 : 23:23:13
|
quote:
I would risk that the problem was the cascade update and not the referential integrity itself.
Technically, I think cascade update/delete is considered part of RI since it won't happen unless you have set up a relationship, but that's just an interpretation of the meaning of the term :)
I'm still wondering what would be gained by putting relationships in our db? The snitz code hasn't caused any relationship problems has it?
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
 |
|
|
pweighill
Junior Member
United Kingdom
453 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 04:21:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doug G
[quote]I'm still wondering what would be gained by putting relationships in our db
You can then use various tools (such as Visio) to create database diagrams and all the relationships will be included automatically  |
|
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 07:04:51
|
Yeah but Snitz wouldn't be as much fun if it was documented now would it  |
Kiwihosting.Net - The Forum Hosting Specialists
|
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 07:06:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin
Yeah but Snitz wouldn't be as much fun if it was documented now would it
Sure, what would we, the mods, do around here if that was the case ? |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
Edited by - ruirib on 07 October 2002 07:06:52 |
|
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 07:52:21
|
Exactly .. we'd be out of a job, broke and homeless ... no wait I'm that now .. hmmm  |
Kiwihosting.Net - The Forum Hosting Specialists
|
|
|
|
Azaniah
Senior Member
United Kingdom
1004 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 08:15:37
|
*stares at the screen*
ok, for those of us (i.e. me) who aren't used all these terms is there an idiots guide to what y'all talking about? |
Eagles fly!, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 08:19:32
|
SQL for Dummies is actually quite informative and I think covers RI,PK,FK etc
One pro for RI within code is that it will actually maintain backwards and forwards compatibilty with the DBMS. You won't believe what a Pain in the******it was when I had to take an MSSQL2K Database and move it to an MSSQL6.5 Server, I had to rewrite virtually all of my cascading updates/deletes etc via Stored Procedure (found a great article on sqlteam for doing that) or within the code instead. |
Kiwihosting.Net - The Forum Hosting Specialists
|
Edited by - Gremlin on 07 October 2002 08:22:58 |
|
|
|
Azaniah
Senior Member
United Kingdom
1004 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 08:33:38
|
| Thanks I'll see if I can rumage a copy of that from somewhere. |
Eagles fly!, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 11:04:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by pweighill
quote:
Originally posted by Doug G
[quote]I'm still wondering what would be gained by putting relationships in our db
You can then use various tools (such as Visio) to create database diagrams and all the relationships will be included automatically
Visio can create a database diagram without relationships. The only difference is there are fewer lines running around the diagram 
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 12:35:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin
One pro for RI within code is that it will actually maintain backwards and forwards compatibilty with the DBMS.
I understand that, but that is a "risky" reasoning. If taken literally it could mean that you willingly chose not to take advantage of some interesting features common to several DBs, just because you need to keep the door open to be backward compatible in the future? Surely there won't be that many times where you'll need to port a database to a very old version of that same DBMS...
Productivity wise I'd usually go with any "common" database features the DBMS has to offer, other than choosing to implement those features in code... |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 12:55:52
|
I dunno, I still have a SQL Server 6.5 in operation. :)
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 16:57:29
|
| A Lot of people still have 6.5, MS SQL is a pretty expensive item to upgrade! |
Kiwihosting.Net - The Forum Hosting Specialists
|
|
|
|
burthold
Junior Member
USA
426 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 17:02:18
|
I tell you though it is a worthy upgrade. I use to run a few high volume user apps on 6.5 and it would just drop a DB if the load got too high or it would suffer some corruption. I spent a ton of time keeping the old DB server running. 7.0 was a godsend, and I apsolutly love 2000.
Cheers,
Wes |
|
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 07 October 2002 : 17:17:06
|
| I'd agree with that, but if you've gone from 6.5 -> 7 -> 2000 you've probably spent what $10,000+ on upgrades ? |
Kiwihosting.Net - The Forum Hosting Specialists
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
