Re: Outer Joins are Evil?
- From: "jaromir nemec" <jaromir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:43:36 +0200
> to avoid performing outer joins.
I guess - at least in data warehouse environment - the real question is not
the use of outer or inner join BUT the use of surrogate or natural keys.
If you design your schema with surrogate keys the result of outer and inner
joins are the same so you have no problems - you may choose the better (if
there is really a difference). You will get no inconstant result and all
tools deliver the same result.
Using natural keys, there are plenty of strategies how to save costs at the
risk of facing some later disastrous scenarios (see Kimball for examples).
> Outer joins are slow
I agree with D. Tow the this is a myth. I see the rationale of this in the
behaviour that outer join on the same data returns greater result set as an
inner join, thus consume more resources.
> should be avoided at all costs.
If you have a choice between feature A (cost X) and B (cost Y) and X > Y,
you may prefer B but not "at all cost". The cost of the switch should be
less then X - Y (decreased by the cost of the migration and quality
assurance).
Jaromir D.B. Nemec
http://www.db-nemec.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barr, Stephen" <Stephen.Barr@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Outer Joins are Evil?
I'm currently working on a datawarehouse project (~5 Tb) where the decision
has been made to avoid performing outer joins.
The reasons given for this seem to be -
1. Simplifies user navigation of the structures - i.e. avoids outer
joins.
2. Outer joins are slow and should be avoided at all costs.
3. If an FK is missing it is populated with a default value which will
relate to an actual row in the target table, hence no rows will ever be
dropped - again, supposedly this is to simply SQL and avoid outer joins.
What they actually do is populate each table in the structure with three
default rows with an SK of 0, 1 & 2. Any FK's which are missing, not
applicable or invalid will point to one of these rows.
Now....my question is....what is so inherently evil about outer joins that
we go to this extreme to avoid them?
AND...has anyone else seen something like this deployed in other places?
Thanks,
Steve.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Information in this email may be privileged, confidential and is
intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may
not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return
e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce,
distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone.
Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail
communication through our internal and external networks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
