RI and Keys, is there any other way? 
Author Message
 RI and Keys, is there any other way?

Hi all,

I currently have a file with 32 keys due to relationships. Most of the keys
are only used for relationships to other files. This is a bit ridiculous as
the file gets updated with about 300 records a day and has become too slow
to use.

My question, can I set up RI without using so many keys? I have optimised my
key usage as far as possible, but cannot have any less due to relationships.
Would it be better to drop the relationships and code these myself in the
update procedures affected?

This file has to go SQL 7 soon and SQL does not like that amount of indexes.

Any ideas, pointers appreciated

Cheers,
Andrew



Sat, 13 Jul 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 RI and Keys, is there any other way?
For lookup tables, I've abandoned RFI and settled for warning the user the user.

My primary files only have the keys necessary to organize the data and maintain
the "big" RFI linkages.  Simple lookup tables are not RFI linked in.  You do not
need a key to set a lookup.

My lookup update forms are set up so that on a delete or change, the user gets a
window warning them that they are trying to delete/change something that might
already have been used and that is a bad thing to do.   The window advises them
to be sure of what they are doing and if they don't understand what they might
damage, to stop and ask.

I strongly limit who can change lookup tables and my warning window is quite
direct and done with enough red and no-nonsense terminology to keep most users
cautious.

This approach depends upon the people you have able to changing things and
obviously is not as strict as a RFI approach, but it seems to work OK for less
critical things like lookup tables.
        Tim

Quote:

> Hi all,

> I currently have a file with 32 keys due to relationships. Most of the keys
> are only used for relationships to other files. This is a bit ridiculous as
> the file gets updated with about 300 records a day and has become too slow
> to use.

> My question, can I set up RI without using so many keys? I have optimised my
> key usage as far as possible, but cannot have any less due to relationships.
> Would it be better to drop the relationships and code these myself in the
> update procedures affected?

> This file has to go SQL 7 soon and SQL does not like that amount of indexes.

> Any ideas, pointers appreciated

> Cheers,
> Andrew

--
Tim Phillips
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Conservation


Sat, 13 Jul 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. I am stuck - Locator on Multi -field Key

2. I am not deaf, but am I mute?

3. ri exceeds AREFS error msg

4. RI on aliases

5. Multple relations, RI and ALIAS

6. C4b/RI on multiple relations

7. Many-to-Many joins and RI

8. Alias and RI

9. RI Update code

10. How to improve RI?

11. RI

12. Template correction for RI

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software