Well the problem is that I have a few (5 or 6) small tables with few
values. From what I understand from Helen, this means that the index
selectivity is low, and hence that there will be a substantial performance
degradation. Here comments on my original foreign key structure left me in
no doubt whatsoever that it was a VERY BAD IDEA. :-D

Inserts are no problem - much of it is already handled client side. Its'
deletions and Updates that I can't figure out.

Furthermore, our production DB is IB 6.01, and there is no way at the
present time that I can quickly upgrade it to FB 1.5 - much as I would like to.

Regards

Tim

At 10:17 AM 21/10/2003 +0200, you wrote:

>Hi Tim,
>
> > I am busy building a database that enforces strict referential integrity.
>I
> > have been advised not to use foreign keys in certain circumstances, as it
> > would severely degrade the database performance. In order to enforce the
> > same referential integrity, I would like to use triggers to prevent the
> > user deleting or changing a record where the record is referenced by
> > another table.
>
>Short advice: use foreign keys.
>
>The situations where it degrades performance have become less - I think -
>with Firebird 1.5 and should be fixed on the server side (that is, by the
>engine
>developers), not on the "user side" (that is: you).
>
>
>With regards,
>
>Martijn Tonies
>Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird & MS SQL Server.
>Upscene Productions
><http://www.upscene.com>http://www.upscene.com
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>firebird-support-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]