well I reckon it's always more robust I feel to join tables on numeric datatypes as opposed to strings.
As for genreal indexing - this is a world of fun. You need to balance off the positives you gain from indexing (quicker selects etc) to the disadvantages (slower inserts/updates/deletes). As for selects experiment as to what combination of fields gives you the quickest response. SQL Server chooses which index to use based on your select statement as opposed to older db's where you actually manually selected the index. A good point to start would be to index on the columns you use in your where clause in the order they appear - add/remove them until you get optimal performance. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2003 16:20 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DB Design Not that I disagree with you, but I would like to here what makes you "uneasy" about using character fields to define a record. I'm a fairly novice DBA, and I would really like to strengthen my understanding of best practices. -------------- Ian Skinner Web Programmer BloodSource Sacramento, CA -----Original Message----- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:21 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DB Design Yup I agree Ian - but sometimes I am a little uneasy about using a combination of character fields to uniquely define a record. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 July 2003 16:12 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DB Design I think what they are referring to, is that in many instances there will be natural keys in the data, and that using these instead of attaching an artificial ID field is a more PURE way to design a database. For example for users, you might use e-mail, for employees you might use SSN, ect. Not sure I believe in this strong enough to match the sentiments you quoted, but I've usually try to use a natural key before I resort to the Identity ID. -------------- Ian Skinner Web Programmer BloodSource Sacramento, CA -----Original Message----- From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:56 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DB Design I welcome the discussion but back it up.. PITA? In what ways? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boardwine, David L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:50 AM Subject: RE: DB Design > Ok, I'll give my .02 worth. BS. What am I supposed to use as a PK? GUIDs? > GUIDs are what M$ uses and they are a PITA. > DavidB > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:48 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: SOT: DB Design > > > I am working on a new DB design for a CFMX app and was doing a little > refresher research on keys and data types and ran across this quote from > former SQL Server project manager Ron Soukup, > > "Identity primary keys are for people who believe there's never time to > design a table right but there's always time to do it over." > > In another related article, another MS SQL guy says that the only reason > identity made it into SQL server was because of Access.... (not a direct > quote). > > Anyone care to comment? > > Mike > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
