>One bias I have, and admit to, is for database knowledge as it applies to interactive CRUD applications. That is what I know. I have done enough reading to know there is a whole different world out there called OLAP, which is where you are coming from here. You have brought the point home. In a static database used for reporting, slicing and dicing, the rules of referential integrity do not apply. The data is fixed and the issue shifts to accessibility and performance.
>
>That is very true, there's an OLTP world and an OLAP world, and things would certainly be cleaner and easier if they were two distinct realms.
>
>But for every one environment where you have a clear distinction and a series of ETL processes in between, you have "Y" number of hybrid environments that evolved over time because the organization didn't have the time or money or in-house expertise to build a textbook environment.
>
>That's one of the (many) reasons for the success of products/tools like PowerPivot, QlikView, Vizubi, and others. These products don't have a distinct identity - they are quasi-fringe products, quasi-platforms for quasi-environments.
>
>The concept of "static database" is becoming somewhat obsolete.

Really? Companies don't still make copies of their databases for analysis purposes?