From: Peter Brawley
Date: May 24 2007 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Integrity on large sites
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/206977
Message-Id: <4655BDC1.10400@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060505000901040101050204"

--------------060505000901040101050204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Naz,

 >"*Really* big sites don't ever have referential integrity. Or if the 
few spots
 >they do (like with financial transactions) it's implemented on the 
application
 >level (via, say, optimistic locking), never the database level."

Mebbe that view was common in the MySQL community in the time of version 
3, when the emphasis was on one site managing one db. Agreed the concept 
is scary. Try that quote in an Oracle or MSSQL community :-)

PB

-----


Naz Gassiep wrote:
> I'm working in a project at the moment that is using MySQL, and people keep making assertions like this one:
>
> "*Really* big sites don't ever have referential integrity. Or if the few spots they do (like with financial transactions) it's implemented on the application level (via, say, optimistic locking), never the database level."
>
> A large DB working with no RI would give me nightmares. Is it really true that large sites turn RI off to improve performance? Am I just being naive in thinking that everyone runs their DBs with RI in production?
>
>
>   

--------------060505000901040101050204--