4 ms·
> but their mappings and underlying relationship are usually not explicitly-defined wouldn't this be an issue no matter what you're using? I'm not sure what y
by chadcmulligan 6y ago
> but their mappings and underlying relationship are usually not explicitly-defined
wouldn't this be an issue no matter what you're using?
I'm not sure what you mean by joins scale with table size? There are few times you'd join more than say 5 or 6 tables.
- htfy96 6y ago> There are few times you'd join more than say 5 or 6 tables. This is only true in new tech where data relationship isn't complicated. Any stored procedure in bank would contain joins with no fewer than that number of tables.
- chadcmulligan 6y agoReally? Twenty years as a database consultant and 5 or 6 tables would be a typical upper limit, you could perhaps get up to 10 or so if you include a lot of lookup tables for codes. I've never worked in banks though, so what would you be looking at there typically?
- Akronymus 6y agoI work at a leasing company, and we somewhat frequently have around 5-7 joins when getting data such as where to send how much money for work done at another company. The most I saw was "only" 10 though.