| From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Integrity on large sites |
| Date: | 2007-05-24 05:05:16 |
| Message-ID: | 46551D0C.5010703@cox.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/23/07 20:29, Tom Allison wrote:
[snip]
> Bottom line, if the DBA or anyone says we can't support RI or UNIQUE
> because of the performance overhead... I would be inclined to look for
> another DBA.
> But I have to admit. I am extremely opinionated about this as I'm the
> guy who does most of the performance and metric reporting using these
> horrid tables.
> it does provide infinite job security, but it's hardly worth it in the
> long run.
We must be the exception to the rule.
In July 2005 we did a major long-weekend unload-reload archive of
our big (400M row) toll tables. There was no RI on the tables,
either PK or FK.
When reloading the "keep" data, I created a PK (fortunately the
hashed/clustered design of the table means that PK enforcement is
almost zero-cost) and loaded the data.
There were ZERO duplicates.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGVR0MS9HxQb37XmcRAsozAKC0TCPBjj0cO58SEHfZ0JDoMdWTUQCeNDLq
Fa0x3oDJGTllIZ65dgdTUiY=
=Kqex
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2007-05-24 05:10:32 | Re: Timestamp with time zone: why not? |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-05-24 04:48:15 | Re: Integrity on large sites |