| List: | General Discussion | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | William R. Mussatto | Date: | March 6 2003 5:30pm |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST index | ||
| View as plain text | |||
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/SEC457.html states that "there must be an > index where the foreign key and the referenced key are listed as the > FIRST columns." Will this restriction be lifted soon? It is incredibly > frustrating. I don't see why they have to be indexes, and more > importantly, I don't see why they have to be FIRST! Ugh. > Major performance hit would be a guess. Otherwise the database would have to do a table scan. Think about how it would find the related record. I think is a requirement of db2 as well > > William R. Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer Ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27 FAX. 909-608-7061
| Thread | ||
|---|---|---|
| • Foreign keys and being FIRST index | Daevid Vincent | 6 Mar |
| • Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST index | Dan Nelson | 6 Mar |
| • RE: Foreign keys and being FIRST index | Daevid Vincent | 6 Mar |
| • Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST index | Dan Nelson | 6 Mar |
| • RE: Foreign keys and being FIRST index | Keith C. Ivey | 6 Mar |
| • Multiple foreign keys? | Daevid Vincent | 8 Mar |
| • re: Multiple foreign keys? | Egor Egorov | 8 Mar |
| • Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST index | William R. Mussatto | 6 Mar |
