Re: Working with tables, best method

["Raul A. Jager W." <raul@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have found that adding a constriant not only protects the integrity, 
but also makes the queries a lot faster.
Is my experience rare, or has anybody else had similar experiences?

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> <snip>
> For example, your code above fails miserably if 
> there is no item master.  And as we all know, item masters disappear. 
> </snip>
> Especially in applications, like BPCS, that:
> - refuses to put a primary key on any table
> - defines their files using DDS
> - refuses to use referential constraints or any other form of constraint.
>
> Most of what you said Joe makes sense.  Walden brings in the point about 
> rethinking your application.
>
> A compromise between the two would be using Left outer joins and 
> evaluating actions to perform based on the appearance of null, or default, 
> values.  Granted, that still doesn't cover some special pricing options. 
> The argument to that is externalizing the pricing to a UDF.  Which, should 
> be doable, but I suspect the number of parameters having to be passed to 
> the UDF could start to get quite large.  And, sooner or later, I/O is 
> involved and the argument pops back up.
>
> Joe, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist this last throw of the 
> gauntlet.
>
> Rob Berendt
>