|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:34 AM
Points: 6,463,
Visits: 1,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:38 PM
Points: 1,584,
Visits: 382
|
|
Andy,
I think this may come down to personal preference and agreed standards. Perhaps a little like the naming convention discussions I'm sure some people will have much stronger views than others, however my 2 penneth worth:
- I like defaults for things like dates - I can see how setting a default for a lookup value may initially look useful but projects that I have worked on previously have regularly seen the business rules develop to an extent where a single default value cannot be specified and it must be calculated based on other criteria. In this instance defaults must be moved back to the business layer/application - Defaults, a little bit like triggers, are not overly "visible". By that I mean they are not obvious by looking at a table and it's columns. No biggy but it requires the person using the table to dig a little further. Similarly specifying the defaults in the stored procedures/tsql enforces this visibility but loses the benefits (and potentially breaks) the defaults specified.
Overall I'm probably caught between options 2 and 3 in your list and I think the realistic answer is that it will vary by organisation and project, however the most important thing, as always, is consistency. Get a consistent approach, certainly within a project, and preferably within an organisation and as long as all people working on that project adhere to it things won't go too far wrong.
Dan www.firstcs.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
        
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:49 AM
Points: 13,436,
Visits: 25,281
|
|
I have to agree. I'm stuck between option 2 & 3 (with occasional forays into 4). Since defaults aren't readily visible to the developers working on stored procs and since you can easily override defaults, enforcement is a bear. We've got well over 100 developers, the majority creating stored procs on various projects. There are seven of us checking on them. Getting them to use good joins, reference the covering index or clustered index, avoiding LIKE & NOT IN & UNION ALL & DISTINCT... This is where we get the biggest wins over all. It's a shame there wasn't a way (short of masking tables with views or something) to optionally disallow inserts to columns that have a default value specified.
---------------------------------------------------- "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt The Scary DBA Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled and SQL Server Execution Plans
Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:10 PM
Points: 2,668,
Visits: 688
|
|
I generally dislike nullable columns, lots of nulls usually mean a poor design, however, sometimes you don't always have all the data - and lets not forget about apps that create new rows by inserting a blank row with the PK ( usually a guid ) and then update the newly created row. So if you don't have all the data you need a value , maybe null or maybe a default, such as 'not set' or 'unknown' etc.etc. I'm slightly confused about the overwriting of a default, a default is usually used to give a value where one is not provided at the time, for instance a blood group ( well I figure not all people know their blood group ) in a doctor's system. The defaults such as dates, userid or such - why would you overwrite them - your documentation and data dictionary should cover this and your test and release process catch any issues. ?
The GrumpyOldDBA www.grumpyolddba.co.uk http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:10 PM
Points: 2,668,
Visits: 688
|
|
Sorry Andy - liked the article.
The GrumpyOldDBA www.grumpyolddba.co.uk http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
|
|
|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:34 AM
Points: 6,463,
Visits: 1,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:11 AM
Points: 1,945,
Visits: 2,782
|
|
I did an article in www.DBAzine.com on how to set up transition constraints you might want to look at.
Books in Celko Series for Morgan-Kaufmann Publishing Analytics and OLAP in SQL Data and Databases: Concepts in Practice Data, Measurements and Standards in SQL SQL for Smarties SQL Programming Style SQL Puzzles and Answers Thinking in Sets Trees and Hierarchies in SQL
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:53 PM
Points: 127,
Visits: 85
|
|
| The answer, as always, is "it depends". What are you trying to optimize for?
|
|
|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:34 AM
Points: 6,463,
Visits: 1,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:43 AM
Points: 287,
Visits: 213
|
|
Andy, excellent article. I prefer to use simple text encoding schemes that are human readable for things like state. An example of alternative to your numeric encoding is:
U = Unverified V = Verified F = Unverified (Follow up sent) X = Expired (Can be deleted)
The advantage to this is that users who are creating reports on the information will come to understand the encoding scheme easier and won't need to join in another table to get the description. Even when there are just a couple encodings on a table, adding the extra join can be a hassle.
Joe's article on transition constraints is also very good. Here is the link for everyone: http://www.dbazine.com/ofinterest/oi-articles/celko35/view.
Bryant E. Byrd, BSSE MCDBA MCAD Business Intelligence Administrator MSBI Administration Blog
|
|
|
|