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

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:51 PM Rob Sargent <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>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:41 PM Rob Sargent <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.