Timeline for Is it ever okay to use lists in a relational database?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2018 at 2:21 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | @Tezra No, I'm saying that sometimes a piece of data from a secondary table is needed often enough to make it make sense to put a copy in the main record. (Example that I have done--the employee table includes the last time in and the last time out. They are used only for display purposes, any actual calculation comes from the table with the clock-in/clock-out records.) | |
| Nov 16, 2018 at 20:18 | comment | added | Tezra | @LorenPechtel Actually, that would still be a bad reason... cache data should be kept in an intermediate cache store, and while the cache is still valid, that query should never hit the main DB. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 9:52 | comment | added | miroxlav | @LorenPechtel – Yes, thanks, in my use of term pre-calculated I also include cases of cached values stored where needed. In systems with complex dependencies, they are the way to keep the performance normal. And if programmed with adequate know-how, these values are reliable and always-in-sync. I just did not want to add case of caching into the answer to keep the answer simple and on safe side. It got downvoted anyway. :) | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 7:52 | history | edited | miroxlav | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 63 characters in body |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 7:46 | history | edited | miroxlav | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 577 characters in body |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 4:10 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | It can be legitimate even without precalculated stuff. I've done it a couple of times where the data is stored properly but for performance reasons it's useful to stuff a few cached results in the main records. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 0:29 | history | edited | miroxlav | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 75 characters in body |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 0:21 | history | answered | miroxlav | CC BY-SA 4.0 |