Re: 2 Oracle doubts

From: Paul Brewer <paul_at_paul.brewers.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:47:44 +0100
Message-ID: <3f22dae0_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>

"Karsten Farrell" <kfarrell_at_belgariad.com> wrote in message news:MPG.198b278b28f7438298980b_at_news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> I understand your point. However, most of our lookup tables are not
> maintained. They are loaded by a sql script once and just sit there. If
> there's an error (such as a duplicate) that sneaks in, the table is simply
> recreated. Unless someone is really interested in messing it up by using
> sqlplus, there's little chance of duplicates sneaking in.
> --
> [:%s/Karsten Farrell/Oracle DBA/g]

But you don't *need* to worry about 'errors sneaking in', or someone 'messing it up by using SQL*Plus'.
Just put a PK constraint on the table. It costs nothing (all right, 2 blocks).
Then there won't be 'little chance' of duplicates; there will be *no* chance.

And if CBO can't recognise that the table will fit into one read, and that the index is not a good one to use(whether or not the table is cached), I'll eat my red hat.

Regards,
Paul Received on Sat Jul 26 2003 - 14:47:44 CDT