RE: Add fields to physical file without exclusive lock _ formerly Re:Stupid question of the century -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: RE: Add fields to physical file without exclusive lock _ formerly Re:Stupid question of the century
From: lloen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:58:08 -0700
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Sharon Wintermute wrote:

The speed gained in "activating new fields" does NOT outweigh the
long-term benefits of a valid database definition. You end up creating
more problems that the one you are trying to solve.

What Sharon said.

How many times a year does this ALTER TABLE really happen? Once?
Twice? Why stand on one's head to make a DB file not be a DB file, give
up (among many other things) ad hoc queries on new fields, all to save a
few rare functions, however difficult they are to schedule?

Larry Loen
www.applicationperformancegroup.com

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: Add fields to physical file without exclusive lock , Alan Shore

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.