Rod Taylor wrote:
The references are all to the same table i.e. they are employee ids, so
leaving some and not others would make no sense. The table has no
deletes, small amount of inserts and moderate amount of updates. However
there are many selects and its their performance I am most concerne
> The references are all to the same table i.e. they are employee ids, so
> leaving some and not others would make no sense. The table has no
> deletes, small amount of inserts and moderate amount of updates. However
> there are many selects and its their performance I am most concerned with.
F
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
> >>this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
> >>related to the same table an
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
integrity violations
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, teknokrat wrote:
> I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
> this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
> related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
> integrity violations ). Would this i
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, teknokrat wrote:
> I have a table that has about 20 foreign key constraints on it. I think
> this is a bit excessive and am considering removing them ( they are all
> related to the same table and I don't think there is much chance of any
> integrity vio
