katesl (7/15/2010)
>>So it's OK to depend on a job that runs infrequently, but it's not OK to depend on a table that has to be maintained infrequently? Where's your DBA?
No, neither are OK, but I believe the former might just be safer than the latter. If the DBA leaves, and doesn't tell his replacement about this magic table of numbers, do we wait for the new DBA to find this table, and work out why it's there?
I think you're marginally *less* likely to have a well tested job screw up, than have a DBA remember to infrequently remember to maintain that table.