Re: Thoughts on how to avoid a massive integer update.

> On May 8, 2020, at 2:57 PM, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:51 PM Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>> On May 8, 2020, at 2:43 PM, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:41 PM Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>> My understanding is the keys in the info_table need to change. That causes the very expensive update in the update in the data tables. No?
>>
>> The keys in the info_table need to change because their contents are no longer legal to be stored (OP has not specified but think using an integer value of someones social security number as a key). The FK side of the relationship equality has the same illegal data values problem and need to be changed too.
>>
> Wow, I couldn’t disagree more ;)
>
> Your agreement or disagreement with the problem statement is immaterial here - the OP has stated what the requirement, for which I have made a simplistic analogy in order to try and get the point across to you. As the OP has said it is a poor design - and now it is being corrected. The request is whether there is some way to do so better than the two options the OP already described.
>
> David J.

Sorry, I wasn’t disagreeing with the problem statement. OP did say the “info.id” needed to change from 123 to 456. With the current foreign key alignment that is very expensive. I think we’re all in agreement there. To push “456” back out to the data table I see as perpetuation of the problem. I didn’t sense that OP felt it necessary to continue in the current mode as a requirement. If so, my mistake