List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Keith C. Ivey Date:March 6 2003 6:22pm
Subject:RE: Foreign keys and being FIRST index
View as plain text  
On 5 Mar 2003, at 19:39, Daevid Vincent wrote:

> Right, but sometimes it isn't, or you already used up that 'first'
> spot for a different foreign key reference in another table.

I think you're misunderstanding something.  In the subject line you 
talk about the first index, and talking about using up the first spot 
seems to go with that misconception.  The documentation you quote 
says nothing about such a restriction, however.  It only says the key 
must be the first *column* in *an* index, which makes sense 
(otherwise the index wouldn't be useful for that key alone).

[Filter fodder: SQL]

-- 
Keith C. Ivey <keith@stripped>
Tobacco Documents Online
http://tobaccodocuments.org
Phone 202-667-6653
Thread
Foreign keys and being FIRST indexDaevid Vincent6 Mar
  • Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST indexDan Nelson6 Mar
    • RE: Foreign keys and being FIRST indexDaevid Vincent6 Mar
      • Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST indexDan Nelson6 Mar
      • RE: Foreign keys and being FIRST indexKeith C. Ivey6 Mar
        • Multiple foreign keys?Daevid Vincent8 Mar
          • re: Multiple foreign keys?Egor Egorov8 Mar
  • Re: Foreign keys and being FIRST indexWilliam R. Mussatto6 Mar