You should not experience any performance hit.
The only real downside is what Dave was talking about -- unless you
have a good reason, why clutter up the database with an extra field and
indexes -- the law of parsimony -- the simplest way is the best way.
But, if you *do* have a good reason (as
What are some of the downsides to this? Will I experience a performance hit
should I use the additional key?
> Now, the above are valid reasons for including a separate key
> -- another might be that the T3 record contains intersection
> data, and/or it is sometimes meaningful to process this ta
On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:25 AM, Nick de Voil wrote:
> Just to play devil's advocate and also enjoy the unusual experience of
> disagreeing with Dave - your proposed approach of adding a surrogate
> key is
> our standard way of doing things. Even when the table is a simple
> intersection table con
I agree, we do the same thing here.
TK
-Original Message-
From: Nick de Voil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: SQL Server Table Design Question
Just to play devil's advocate and also enjoy the unusual experien
Just to play devil's advocate and also enjoy the unusual experience of
disagreeing with Dave - your proposed approach of adding a surrogate key is
our standard way of doing things. Even when the table is a simple
intersection table consisting of nothing but 2 foreign keys, we always make
the primar
I tend to agree with Dave and opt for not adding Column C
If I understand, you want to deal with C as an abstraction of the A-B
relationship. I can see how passing C (instead of A & B) would
simplify form handling.
But, you could pass AB just as easily as you can pass C.
I think introducing
Basically, I only gave you a partial story.. The rest of it is that the join
tables are used in other relationships and the where conditions and join
conditions are getting sloppy. In addition, a lot of the front end deals
with dynamic forms and passing around a handful of IDs is getting
cumbersome
yeah, the question is a bit vague
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: SQL Server Table Design Question
On Mar 18, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Tangorre, Michael wrote:
> What is the proper,
On Mar 18, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Tangorre, Michael wrote:
> What is the proper, or preferred way of doing the following:
>
>
> I have three tables:
>
>
> T1 - PK A
> T2 - PK B
> T3 - PK AB (compound)
>
>
> Is it acceptable to add column C to T3 and make that the PK, and then
> add a
> unique co
What is the proper, or preferred way of doing the following:
I have three tables:
T1 - PK A
T2 - PK B
T3 - PK AB (compound)
Is it acceptable to add column C to T3 and make that the PK, and then add a
unique constraint to AB? This would ease writing in writing of the WHERE
clauses when up
10 matches
Mail list logo
