Timeline for Good reason to denormalize?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2012 at 11:49 | answer | added | Todd Everett | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 21, 2012 at 8:15 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackDBAs/status/204485517704835072 | ||
| May 18, 2012 at 10:25 | vote | accept | sqlbattsman | ||
| May 17, 2012 at 13:48 | answer | added | HLGEM | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 17, 2012 at 6:51 | comment | added | András Váczi | That could be the single best solution I can think of. But Alex should answer this, his comment says very much the same I would... | |
| May 17, 2012 at 3:00 | comment | added | A-K | This could work. I would use FK/Unique constraints to ensure that ProjectID stays the same all way down the chain of child/granchild etc. tables. | |
| May 17, 2012 at 2:12 | comment | added | sqlbattsman | Yes, but they chose to cluster on the foreign key due to the frequency of the joins | |
| May 17, 2012 at 2:11 | comment | added | Simon Righarts |
Do you have indexes on your id fields?
|
|
| May 17, 2012 at 2:07 | history | asked | sqlbattsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |