<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Outer Joins are Evil</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2007/12/18/outer-joins-are-evil/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2007/12/18/outer-joins-are-evil/</link>
	<description>Practical techniques for raising a well-adjusted database</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:33:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: vdibart</title>
		<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2007/12/18/outer-joins-are-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>vdibart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/?p=9#comment-10</guid>
		<description>I would argue that if you have so many user-driven writes executing that it&#039;s affecting batch updates you may have to consider a redesign anyway.  The typical web application is about 85% to 95% reads, so it would be very unusual to have that many user-driven writes.  

What I&#039;m getting at is that in most cases leaning on the 1:1 table design in hopes that it will improve performance is little more than the work of an overzealous DBA trying to find the &quot;ideal&quot; data model.  No comment on what this implies about my old friend NetComrade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would argue that if you have so many user-driven writes executing that it&#8217;s affecting batch updates you may have to consider a redesign anyway.  The typical web application is about 85% to 95% reads, so it would be very unusual to have that many user-driven writes.  </p>
<p>What I&#8217;m getting at is that in most cases leaning on the 1:1 table design in hopes that it will improve performance is little more than the work of an overzealous DBA trying to find the &#8220;ideal&#8221; data model.  No comment on what this implies about my old friend NetComrade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NetComrade</title>
		<link>http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/2007/12/18/outer-joins-are-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>NetComrade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nodroidsallowed.com/?p=9#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Until there is column-level locking in Oracle, 1:1 tables are unavoidable to allow batch updates and user updates to happen at the same time, in your case for users and user_details.

But yes, outer joins are evil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Until there is column-level locking in Oracle, 1:1 tables are unavoidable to allow batch updates and user updates to happen at the same time, in your case for users and user_details.</p>
<p>But yes, outer joins are evil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.260 seconds -->

