On Fr, 1999-07-23 17:48:00 +0300, Sinisa Milivojevic wrote:
> Vivek Khera writes:
> > It sounds to me like saying "indexes are not supported since they slow
> > down inserts".
> No, yuo are saying exactly what I am saying.
Sinisa, you doesn't seem to see Vivek's point:
He's not talking about saving foreign key information, but not using
it at all (this in deed would be quite useless).
He's asking, what speed penalty you would have with tables that are
not involved in foreign keys (neither as source or target)?
For operations on such tables I dare to ask, too: why should INSERTs,
UPDATEs, DELETEs on such tables be slower than they are now - there
would be no need to do any additional checks (beside checking a tiny
flag if there are foreign keys involved or not).
So, if we would use the same database schemes as now--without foreign
keys--in theory there should be nearly no performance penalty.
The actual use of them might be cotly, but that's in exchange for
the gained functionalty.
I think, this is, what Vivek was talking about ...
Martin Ramsch <m.ramsch@stripped> <URL: http://home.pages.de/~ramsch/ >
PGP KeyID=0xE8EF4F75 FiPr=52 44 5E F3 B0 B1 38 26 E4 EC 80 58 7B 31 3A D7