Talk:Declarative Referential Integrity

Remark
Wow, I never knew an article this short could be so wrong. SqlPac 04:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Clarification on generic SQL meaning added. PPOST (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Microsoft SQL Server Database Permissions, Declarative Referential Integrity column screenshot.png
Image:Microsoft SQL Server Database Permissions, Declarative Referential Integrity column screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Referential integrity
This is just a grander name for the more commonly used "referential integrity", right? So let's merge this material into that article. Bertport (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK with me. I suggest to just move the picture from Referential integrity and the "see also" into this article here and remove the other text as it covers the same information but in a less clear manner for a novice. Referential integrity should get a redirect to Declarative Referential Integrity then. PPOST (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Declarative Referential Integrity should be a redirect to Referential integrity, because "referential integrity" is much more commonly used. Google gives 7K pages for "declarative referential integrity" and 578K pages for "referential integrity". The best material from both pages should go into Referential integrity. Bertport (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "referential integrity" and "declarative referential integrity" is that declarative referential integrity is enforced by the constraints specified declaratively in the database; as opposed to application-enforced referential integrity where constraints do not exist in the db, but are the responsibility of the application only. Early RDBMS in fact did not have DRI and the only way to ensure RI was to write the application carefully, with that in mind. To put it another way "referential integrity" refers to the concept of database integrity, no orphan records etc, whilst 'Declarative' specifies how that is to be achieved. Grumpypierre (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I would say that this concept is not independently notable of Referential integrity so the merge does sound like a good idea, to prevent this article from being deleted in a notability challenge. I would also think that a general concept would have lower case letters, declarative referential integrity. The only reason to use upper case on all words would be to only describe one specific technology (a proper noun), but I see the one source given uses lower case even for the Microsoft usage! W Nowicki (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)