network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Juneau, AK | |
| age | 45 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 2 months |
| seen | Mar 25 at 18:34 | |
| stats | profile views | 3 |
I have two wonderful kids, a boy and a girl. My wife is a treasure.
|
Dec 15 |
comment |
Consequences of multiple FK's from same column to multiple tables @ypercube: good point, that should be an answer. |
|
Dec 15 |
revised |
Consequences of multiple FK's from same column to multiple tables added tag |
|
Dec 15 |
comment |
Consequences of multiple FK's from same column to multiple tables @dezso: Right, once the FK's BA and CB are created CA becomes redundant -- just not sure if that redundancy is a problem. |
|
Dec 15 |
comment |
Consequences of multiple FK's from same column to multiple tables @AlexKuznetsov: there isn't a practical problem, and adding FK's is just about the limit of what is possible at this stage. The FK from C to A(aid) already exists, so the question is remove it and replace with a FK from C to B(aid) or just add it on top? I don't think it makes a practical difference. |
|
Dec 15 |
revised |
Consequences of multiple FK's from same column to multiple tables Updated schema |
|
Dec 15 |
asked | Consequences of multiple FK's from same column to multiple tables |
|
Dec 2 |
accepted | Why SQL Server doesn't support foreign key constraints on views? |
|
Nov 30 |
awarded | Critic |
|
Nov 30 |
asked | Why SQL Server doesn't support foreign key constraints on views? |
|
Nov 23 |
comment |
Security and Performance implications of “View Server State” @PeterCarter: thanks for answering. |
|
Nov 23 |
accepted | Security and Performance implications of “View Server State” |
|
Oct 26 |
comment |
Security and Performance implications of “View Server State” @PeterCarter: +1 for the DoS and common wait states. I was hoping for something a bit more encompassing, but at least it's a solid potential risk. |
|
Oct 24 |
comment |
Security and Performance implications of “View Server State” @ThomasStringer: the question isn't about necessity, it's about risk. To put it in monetary terms, you may know what additional risks this would expose your servers to, and so be able to say no to a penny, and yes to a million dollars. I don't, but I want to. |
|
Oct 23 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Oct 23 |
comment |
Security and Performance implications of “View Server State” I understand Least Privileges, I in fact referenced it in my question -- I am looking for how to evaluate need vs risk. If 50% of the views cause the server to grind to a halt or it allows the user to view confidential information, then the need would have to be significant. |
|
Oct 22 |
asked | Security and Performance implications of “View Server State” |
|
Aug 11 |
awarded | Student |
|
Aug 11 |
comment |
UDF in check constraint — downside? The application is where you try to do things right, the database is where you can say "this is wrong, don't allow it". |
|
Aug 11 |
comment |
Why aren't primary key / foreign key matches used for joins? @onedaywhen: I was referring to the syntax "natural join table_name (columnlist)", which I don't belive is ANSI 92, as an extension which allows you to join on more than one columns provided that both tables have them. |
|
Aug 11 |
comment |
UDF in check constraint — downside? @AlexKuznetsov: I read your blog, and have verified your general conclusion, but your query is incorrect for your stated goals (only one row with b if any row with b has 1), you need a second query to check for the number of rows with b's (otherwise adding a row with c2=0 works). I think the "workaround" of including all columns that are evaluated in the UDF in the parameter list should fix the general problem, but it's definitely a potential "gotcha" that you have to be aware of if you're going to use a UDF in a check constraint. |
