From: | Markus Schaber <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Rodrigo Sakai <rodrigo(dot)sakai(at)zanthus(dot)com(dot)br> |
Subject: | Re: FOREIGN KEYS vs PERFORMANCE |
Date: | 2006-04-12 13:18:55 |
Message-ID: | 443CFE3F.5090304@logix-tt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi, Michael,
Hi, Rodrigo,
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd leave all referential
> integrity in the database and deal with the errors thrown when
> referential integrity is violated in the application. PostgreSQL is
> designed to handle these kinds of issues. Anything you code in your
> application is more likely to contain bugs or miss corner cases that
> would allow referential integrity to be violated. PostgreSQL has been
> pounded on for years by a great many users and developers, making the
> likelihood of bugs still remaining much smaller.
I strictly agree with Michael here.
> Of course, you can add some referential integrity checks in your
> application code, but those should be in addition to your database-
> level checks.
Agree. It does make sense to have reference checks in the UI or
application level for the sake of better error handling, but the
database should be the mandatory judge.
There's another advantage of database based checking: Should there ever
be the need of a different application working on the same database (e.
G. an "expert level UI", or some connector that connects / synchronizes
to another software, or a data import tool), database based constraints
cannot be broken opposed to application based ones.
HTH,
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig A. James | 2006-04-12 14:45:17 | Re: FOREIGN KEYS vs PERFORMANCE |
Previous Message | Harry Hehl | 2006-04-12 13:04:28 | Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index |