Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Stephen Russell]

Just have another table to retain the pkey, date and reason why of all the
"Remove From View" entities.

Now you can do an where NOT IN clause against this table to filter
properly.

How do you manage mergers and cascading data?

Our clientele are the oligarchs in the food-oil industry.  They will sell
each other physical plants which are our direct trading partners.

When you want to keep the history of what that "Ship to address" has done
over the past 5-10+ years what do you do?

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:18 AM, AndyHC  wrote:

> Totally agree - my default would be an 'instead of Delete' trigger that
> set a deleted flag (and logged it), and all regular user views to filter on
> that flag.
>
> On 02-Nov-2017 3:31 AM, Ted Roche wrote:
>
>> DELETE is one of the easist ways to screw up a database that doesn't
>> have proper RI declared. Clients all the time ask to "delete" Customer
>> X because they no longer work with them, business closed, got bought,
>> or something.
>>
> 
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMY+tVz4V-vJn24e5_sotk3JGoekaaEfVqezQJ6YJ2=t...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[AndyHC]

Totally agree - my default would be an 'instead of Delete' trigger that 
set a deleted flag (and logged it), and all regular user views to filter 
on that flag.


On 02-Nov-2017 3:31 AM, Ted Roche wrote:

DELETE is one of the easist ways to screw up a database that doesn't
have proper RI declared. Clients all the time ask to "delete" Customer
X because they no longer work with them, business closed, got bought,
or something.



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4f6a8d85-4f1b-041d-2b51-20ad9e760...@hawthorncottage.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[mbsoftwaresolutions]

On 2017-11-01 15:54, Kurt Wendt wrote:

Interesting discussion - considering a situation here at my job just
today/yesterday.

An email from a manager claiming that since this one employee is no
longer with the co. (although the email was late since the guy left
about 4 weeks ago) - was asking to have this User removed from these
various systems. So - I responded yesterday that I had deleted the
user record from this one system.

Then - this buddy of mine, another programmer here - he was out
yesterday, so he asks me about the deletion of the record. He was
worried that the deletion of the record would cause problems if there
are FK constraints! I told him he need not worry - since for the most
part in the system I did it - there really are mostly no FK's in
there. Of course, I know there are a couple - but, nothing that would
be impacted by the removal of a user from a table.

So - yes - I can relate.

-K-




I always advise to disable or deactivate and remove access rather than 
delete completely.


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/3e04c1b78575822ace4c7e539e4a6...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Kurt at VR-FX]

Yeah Ted - thanks for the input. Yeah - it depends. I checked with the 
season veteran programmer there - as she has been there for like 17 
years and supported the system for which I deleted the record. I was 
pretty sure there was no Inactive status for the User record - and she 
confirmed I was right. So - in this particular instance - simply 
deleting that User record is no big deal. I Promise! Cross my heart!


:-)

-K-


On 11/1/2017 6:01 PM, Ted Roche wrote:

DELETE is one of the easist ways to screw up a database that doesn't
have proper RI declared. Clients all the time ask to "delete" Customer
X because they no longer work with them, business closed, got bought,
or something.

Months later, they want to re-run reports for years past, and can't
understand why the numbers don't tie out.

Nearly all the entities in my apps have an Active/Inactive flag so
they no longer show up on dropdowns and picklists, but still exist in
the database for historical purposes.

If there's a big enough demand, there's an admin function to remove
"unused" records, but usually that's just a cleanup issue for the DBA.

As Bill said, RI rules in the DB should just be a backup for database
integrity, and especially important if DBs can be accessed from other
apps (like Excel!). I'm a fan of "Forbid" rules that prevent deletion
of records "in use," but not "delete cascade" that makes little
problems into big ones; I think a delete cascade should be a business
object procedure, not one at the DB level.

And of course, as the consultant says, "It depends."

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Kurt Wendt  wrote:

Interesting discussion - considering a situation here at my job just 
today/yesterday.

An email from a manager claiming that since this one employee is no longer with 
the co. (although the email was late since the guy left about 4 weeks ago) - 
was asking to have this User removed from these various systems. So - I 
responded yesterday that I had deleted the user record from this one system.

Then - this buddy of mine, another programmer here - he was out yesterday, so 
he asks me about the deletion of the record. He was worried that the deletion 
of the record would cause problems if there are FK constraints! I told him he 
need not worry - since for the most part in the system I did it - there really 
are mostly no FK's in there. Of course, I know there are a couple - but, 
nothing that would be impacted by the removal of a user from a table.

So - yes - I can relate.

-K-

-Original Message-
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of 
mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 3:39 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your 
database schema?

On 2017-11-01 15:21, Bill Anderson wrote:

Mike,


Where's your preference in design with these in mind?<<

My philosophy is that the back end database, whatever it is, should be
a dumb as a rock. A database should only be concerned with its
internal integrity and no more. Anything else is pretty much geared
toward vendor lock-in.

But having noted that, FK constraints are absolutely a part of the
data integrity. So yes, use 'em.

Views? Sure, that's basically the only way to communicate. Business
rules?
Nope, stay away. That's for middleware.

Bill Anderson


Hi Bill!

I agree completely.

--Mike



[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/14f54506-e62f-df48-a0a5-8354bf44a...@optonline.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Ted Roche]

DELETE is one of the easist ways to screw up a database that doesn't
have proper RI declared. Clients all the time ask to "delete" Customer
X because they no longer work with them, business closed, got bought,
or something.

Months later, they want to re-run reports for years past, and can't
understand why the numbers don't tie out.

Nearly all the entities in my apps have an Active/Inactive flag so
they no longer show up on dropdowns and picklists, but still exist in
the database for historical purposes.

If there's a big enough demand, there's an admin function to remove
"unused" records, but usually that's just a cleanup issue for the DBA.

As Bill said, RI rules in the DB should just be a backup for database
integrity, and especially important if DBs can be accessed from other
apps (like Excel!). I'm a fan of "Forbid" rules that prevent deletion
of records "in use," but not "delete cascade" that makes little
problems into big ones; I think a delete cascade should be a business
object procedure, not one at the DB level.

And of course, as the consultant says, "It depends."

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Kurt Wendt  wrote:
> Interesting discussion - considering a situation here at my job just 
> today/yesterday.
>
> An email from a manager claiming that since this one employee is no longer 
> with the co. (although the email was late since the guy left about 4 weeks 
> ago) - was asking to have this User removed from these various systems. So - 
> I responded yesterday that I had deleted the user record from this one system.
>
> Then - this buddy of mine, another programmer here - he was out yesterday, so 
> he asks me about the deletion of the record. He was worried that the deletion 
> of the record would cause problems if there are FK constraints! I told him he 
> need not worry - since for the most part in the system I did it - there 
> really are mostly no FK's in there. Of course, I know there are a couple - 
> but, nothing that would be impacted by the removal of a user from a table.
>
> So - yes - I can relate.
>
> -K-
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of 
> mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 3:39 PM
> To: profoxt...@leafe.com
> Subject: Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in 
> your database schema?
>
> On 2017-11-01 15:21, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
 Where's your preference in design with these in mind?<<
>>
>> My philosophy is that the back end database, whatever it is, should be
>> a dumb as a rock. A database should only be concerned with its
>> internal integrity and no more. Anything else is pretty much geared
>> toward vendor lock-in.
>>
>> But having noted that, FK constraints are absolutely a part of the
>> data integrity. So yes, use 'em.
>>
>> Views? Sure, that's basically the only way to communicate. Business
>> rules?
>> Nope, stay away. That's for middleware.
>>
>> Bill Anderson
>
>
> Hi Bill!
>
> I agree completely.
>
> --Mike
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4uALpGxJJAetHGAzZT3tK-pB0dMRxD_XjD8=a+ovwj...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Stephen Russell]

I don't know about dumb as a rock.  Here is a short list of stuff that a
dumb rock doesn't do, IMHO.

I want the db to be able to do ETL with any data instrument I have and
validate if errors are generated as I am doing it.   I demand the jobs
engine run a specific job when told to do so, alert me when it is done and
if an error happens more about that.  For my DW environment, I expect data
selection and placement into the proper cube.

The email service to push out messages as sprocs define them to the correct
person as well as the correct attachment.

I expect excellent security that interacts with my AD for users that come
and go their rights follow the proper channel.  I also expect that I can go
full-on gearhead and define access to a specific object in the database if
that is needed.

As limits for growth are defined they better be followed.

Logs are a necessary evil.

I expect to be able to backup my databases and restore them easily.

The api for the dataengine should be available in at least two layers for
access.

I want to tell the db what schemas a user or application is allowed to
use.

I expect to be able to write functions() that can do specific
transformations as needed.

Output can be is dataset, xml, json, in encrypted or non-encrypted form.

I expect the database to adapt to many language sets and allow joins to
other databases that are in different ones.



On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Bill Anderson  wrote:

> Mike,
>
> >>Where's your preference in design with these in mind?<<
>
> My philosophy is that the back end database, whatever it is, should be a
> dumb as a rock. A database should only be concerned with its internal
> integrity and no more. Anything else is pretty much geared toward vendor
> lock-in.
>
> But having noted that, FK constraints are absolutely a part of the data
> integrity. So yes, use 'em.
>
> Views? Sure, that's basically the only way to communicate. Business rules?
> Nope, stay away. That's for middleware.
>
> Bill Anderson
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:26 PM, <
> mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle
> > database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but then
> > kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just handle some
> > things in the BizObj of the solution rather than put more rules in the
> > backend database.  The idea was that if I changed backend databases, I
> > wouldn't need to rewrite a whole bunch of specific DBMS code.
> >
> > Where's your preference in design with these in mind?
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMYKRKx7-6WBt10x3N0xFedD1FwD1=C4BYGWaJozkV=z...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Kurt Wendt]

Interesting discussion - considering a situation here at my job just 
today/yesterday.

An email from a manager claiming that since this one employee is no longer with 
the co. (although the email was late since the guy left about 4 weeks ago) - 
was asking to have this User removed from these various systems. So - I 
responded yesterday that I had deleted the user record from this one system. 

Then - this buddy of mine, another programmer here - he was out yesterday, so 
he asks me about the deletion of the record. He was worried that the deletion 
of the record would cause problems if there are FK constraints! I told him he 
need not worry - since for the most part in the system I did it - there really 
are mostly no FK's in there. Of course, I know there are a couple - but, 
nothing that would be impacted by the removal of a user from a table. 

So - yes - I can relate. 

-K-

-Original Message-
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of 
mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 3:39 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your 
database schema?

On 2017-11-01 15:21, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Mike,
> 
>>> Where's your preference in design with these in mind?<<
> 
> My philosophy is that the back end database, whatever it is, should be 
> a dumb as a rock. A database should only be concerned with its 
> internal integrity and no more. Anything else is pretty much geared 
> toward vendor lock-in.
> 
> But having noted that, FK constraints are absolutely a part of the 
> data integrity. So yes, use 'em.
> 
> Views? Sure, that's basically the only way to communicate. Business 
> rules?
> Nope, stay away. That's for middleware.
> 
> Bill Anderson


Hi Bill!

I agree completely.

--Mike


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/80838f1ca795b14ea1af48659f35166f1906a...@drexch02.corp.globetax.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[mbsoftwaresolutions]

On 2017-11-01 15:21, Bill Anderson wrote:

Mike,


Where's your preference in design with these in mind?<<


My philosophy is that the back end database, whatever it is, should be 
a

dumb as a rock. A database should only be concerned with its internal
integrity and no more. Anything else is pretty much geared toward 
vendor

lock-in.

But having noted that, FK constraints are absolutely a part of the data
integrity. So yes, use 'em.

Views? Sure, that's basically the only way to communicate. Business 
rules?

Nope, stay away. That's for middleware.

Bill Anderson



Hi Bill!

I agree completely.

--Mike


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/09bfac2b08b79c740e5e47a18a768...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Bill Anderson]

Mike,

>>Where's your preference in design with these in mind?<<

My philosophy is that the back end database, whatever it is, should be a
dumb as a rock. A database should only be concerned with its internal
integrity and no more. Anything else is pretty much geared toward vendor
lock-in.

But having noted that, FK constraints are absolutely a part of the data
integrity. So yes, use 'em.

Views? Sure, that's basically the only way to communicate. Business rules?
Nope, stay away. That's for middleware.

Bill Anderson

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:26 PM, <
mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:

> At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle
> database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but then
> kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just handle some
> things in the BizObj of the solution rather than put more rules in the
> backend database.  The idea was that if I changed backend databases, I
> wouldn't need to rewrite a whole bunch of specific DBMS code.
>
> Where's your preference in design with these in mind?
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/ca+o1engzhtfj1gwbcgotw+2boj9p17mtz8squse5dm+irr2...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[AndyHC]

for a stand-alone VFP solution it'd probably not worth the trouble, for 
a SQL back-end // where agents other than your program might get access 
// I like to use pk; fk constraints; mostly deny access to the base 
tables and provide user views barricaded with 'instead of' constraints 
that validate insert / delete / update transactions with logging. The 
hope is that even illegitimate users can only do 'proper' transactions 
and at worst can be traced.


On 01-Nov-2017 1:56 AM, mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle 
database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but 
then kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just 
handle some things in the BizObj of the solution rather than put more 
rules in the backend database.  The idea was that if I changed backend 
databases, I wouldn't need to rewrite a whole bunch of specific DBMS 
code.


Where's your preference in design with these in mind?


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/e0e6a11b-deec-71d4-83b8-65ef86220...@hawthorncottage.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[mbsoftwaresolutions]

On 2017-10-31 17:02, Charlie-gm wrote:
On 10/31/2017 4:26 PM, mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com 
wrote:
At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle 
database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but 
then kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just 
handle some things in the BizObj of the solution rather

For large applications (500+ tables) I usually require it. Smaller
apps... eh... I think there would still be benefits but I'm usually
building them so fast that end users won't take the time to provide a
complete enough picture to drive all RI rules. Sure, I could still do
them on my "internal design only" tables, but like you said, there is
some overhead associated. So in the smaller cases it's pretty
situational as to whether or not I use it.

My attitude is, generally, the more you can put "into" the database,
that "belongs" in the database, the better flexibility,
maintainability, and stability you'll get.



I am using triggers in one of my apps (FabNet) to make sure keys have 
cascading updates/deletes elsewhere as needed.


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/04b9d8538b42c4c2742f75fb9c6ef...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Stephen Russell]

Constraints stop some devs cold when they are trying to "clean up" their
data.

It is in the correct space in the database because it protects the data
there.  Compliance auditors like it as well.



On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:26 PM, <
mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:

> At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle
> database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but then
> kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just handle some
> things in the BizObj of the solution rather than put more rules in the
> backend database.  The idea was that if I changed backend databases, I
> wouldn't need to rewrite a whole bunch of specific DBMS code.
>
> Where's your preference in design with these in mind?
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMYJjCtegFvqi=pkbdzkuy_5gzfntq2ucmonpcpy+m8p...@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[Charlie-gm]

On 10/31/2017 4:26 PM, mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle 
database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but 
then kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just 
handle some things in the BizObj of the solution rather
For large applications (500+ tables) I usually require it. Smaller 
apps... eh... I think there would still be benefits but I'm usually 
building them so fast that end users won't take the time to provide a 
complete enough picture to drive all RI rules. Sure, I could still do 
them on my "internal design only" tables, but like you said, there is 
some overhead associated. So in the smaller cases it's pretty 
situational as to whether or not I use it.


My attitude is, generally, the more you can put "into" the database, 
that "belongs" in the database, the better flexibility, maintainability, 
and stability you'll get.


-Charlie

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/fed5c7ff-8f70-e818-de09-75dc8f0f7...@gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

How many of you use foreign key constraints and References in your database schema?

[mbsoftwaresolutions]

At the day gig, they use FK constraints and References in their Oracle 
database schema.  Honestly, I got into that years ago with VFP but then 
kinda fell off that wagon over the years, preferring to just handle some 
things in the BizObj of the solution rather than put more rules in the 
backend database.  The idea was that if I changed backend databases, I 
wouldn't need to rewrite a whole bunch of specific DBMS code.


Where's your preference in design with these in mind?

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/e92feff80f8c017e701c6c53d2150...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.