Re: Interesting question and debate on ddl tables with datefieldsthatwill not always have a value

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Granted, it was a bit harsh. Sorry.

Would you use RI from the OS?

In a new database, I would definitely consider it. I have a few issues with foreign keys that I'd need to address. For example, let's take a situation where a location has a primary item and an item has a primary location. If those fields were both constrained, then you'd have to write one of the records twice, I think. But the benefits you gain from database participation in integrity is hard to dismiss.

I would not, however, retrofit referential integrity onto databases that already have logic built into the applicatio - *unless* there was a compelling business reason to rewrite the application. Which, by the way, might well be the case in a situation where you are converting a traditional green screen application to a service-oriented architecture.

I do, though, draw the line at using techniques that I consider "invasive" - things like constraints or triggers enforcing business rules, for example. I've outlined my position on that in detail. And even then, I suppose that if you could make a business case for it, especially in a new application, I wouldn't begrudge you your decision - just as long as you didn't try to tell me I was wrong or technically backward because I didn't.

Joe