Subject: Adjusted rate of 2.99%

From: Steps to HARP Refinance <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:52:16 -0700

Dear Atompub-archive,

We are contacting you today so you can take advantage of a new lower home rate.
2014 U.S. Rate Update - Housing Systems is allowing for lower monthly rates.

 - As of 05/16 UPDATE: 2.99% Fixed rate is available to you - 

Payment Reduction Estimator Below. 
-> http://www.whichcay.com/new/mortgage/rate/available.index

It literally take 5 minutes or less to see your new monthly.
(Ref-ID--20689)

| Mortgage Refinance | Refi W/O  | Home Improvement | Debt Consolidation | Equity Loan | 
View  Estimator -> http://www.whichcay.com/new/mortgage/rate/available.index

message settings - modify w/ Urgent Info Services 
3205 Lake_Sarah|Independence-MN-55359 http://www.whichcay.com/94hg/bgpe94.bhno5b follow very closely a methodology described in the referenced articles. You don't need to implement every level, and there are variations which will work equally well. The system is flexible, easily customizable, allows for fine-grained control over schema and data changes, and works very well as a best practice for database source control. The part which can be tricky and adds almost as much security as the rest of the process is a tool to help manage the scripts. It can be as simple as file concatenation, or as complex as automated deployments. First get src ctrl, then think about a tool.   ulty4life Oct 27 '10 aif [ $VERSION \< '8.0.108' ] ; then
  psql -U cosuser $dbName << EOF8.0.108
    BEGIN TRANSACTION;
Remove foreign key that shouldn't have been there.PCR:35665
    ALTER TABLE     migratorjobitems
    DROP CONSTRAINT migratorjobitems_destcmaid_fkey;
    -- 
    -- Increment the version
    UPDATE          sys_infoSET             value = '8.0.108'WHERE           key = 'DB VERSION'; END TRANSACTIONEOF8.0.108if [ $VERSION \< '8.0.109' ] ; then
  psql -U cosuser $dbName << EOF8.0.109
    BEGIN TRANSACTION;
    --
    -- I missed a couple of cases when I changed the legacy playlist
    -- from reporting showplaylistidnum to playlistidnum
    --
    ALTER TABLE     featureidrequestkdcs
    DROP CONSTRAINT featureidrequestkdcs_cosfeatureid_fkey; ALTER TABLE     featureidrequestkdcs ADD CONSTRAINT  featureidrequestkdcs_cosfeatureid_fkeyFOREIGN KEY     (cosfeatureid)REFERENCES      playlist(playlistidnum)
ALTER TABLE     ticket_system_ids
DROP CONSTRAINT ticket_system_ids_showplaylistidnum_fkey;
ALTER TABLE     ticket_system_ids
 RENAME          showplaylistidnum
TO              playlistidnum;ALTER TABLE     ticket_system_ids ADD CONSTRAINT  ticket_system_ids_playlistidnum_fkeyFOREIGN KEY     (playlistidnum) REFERENCES      playlist(playlistidnum)ON DELETE       CASCADE;Increment the versioUPDATE          sys_info SET             value = '8.0.109' WHERE           key = 'DB VERSION'; END TRANSACTION; Bill, "it's common practice these days to create a pseudokey for a child table, but not make the foreign key to the parent part of the child's primary key" - any links as to why this is? Google is failing me.   hobodave Mar 10 '10 at 21:41
3	  	Best answer ! Your example made my thought process clear !   GuruC Mar 27 '12 at 16:12
  	  	
That being said CI should be always used for PK   John Dec 1 '13 at 21:00
1	  	
@Caltor The table. The index is ordered by definition. For example, a btree would be ordered so that one can simply do address arithmetic to search. The idea of the cluster is to cater the table to the performance of a particular index. To be clear, the records of the table will be reordered to match the order that the index is originally in.   FLGMwt Mar 19 at 16:07
1	  	
@Caltor Not at all! Indeed, the documentation and the name itself are quite misleading. Having a "clustered index" really has quite little to do with the index. Conceptually, what you really have is "a table clustered on index x".   FLGMwt Mar 20 at 14:57
It seems like "properly" constructing identifying relationships would lead to obnoxiously huge primary keys. e.g. Building has Floor has Room has Bed. The PK for Bed would be (bed_id, floor_id, room_id, building_id). It seem's strange that I've never seen this in practice, nor heard it suggested as a way to do anything. That's a lot of redundant data in the PK.   hobodave Mar 10 '10 at 23:34
8	  	
@hobodave: I have seen multi-column primary keys that are even larger. But I take your point. Consider that multi-column primary keys convey more information; you can query the Beds table for all beds in a specific building without doing any joins.   Bill Karwin Mar 11 '10 at 1:00
1	  	
@Eugene, yes I would expect that to be a non-identifying relationship.  user_id should be the primary key by itself, and updated_by is not part of a multi-column primary key.   Bill Karwin Jul 29 '11 at 14:18