Sounds very, very good.

Marcelo Lopez Ruiz

----- Original Message -----
From: Ann Harrison <harrison@...>
To: <IB-Architect@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Rebuilding foreign keys system indexes


> At 10:26 AM 11/2/2000 +0100, Olivier Mascia wrote:
> >The system index automatically defined on a foreign key column cannot
> >be set inactive then active in order to rebuild it. It can't be
> >dropped and recreated too. So after a mass insertion in a table
> >with foreign keys, a set statistics is all what can be done to the
indexes
> >to get them back in better shape.
>
> >Here is the design question : why are the indexes on foreign keys
> >made mandatory ? Wouldn't it be acceptable to make them 'dropable' or
> >at least allow them to be set inactive (then active again) ?
>
> Not only acceptable, but very desirable. Here's what I would like to
> do.
>
> 1) Allow all indexes to be [de]activated and dropped. This one
> is an easy change.
>
> 2) Extend the foreign key constraint definition language with
> the option [[NO ]INDEXES]. The default would be INDEXES.
> NO INDEXES will create the constraint without creating
> any new indexes. This one is a relatively easy change.
>
> 3) Extend the foreign key constraint definition language with
> the option [[IN]ACTIVE]. The default would be ACTIVE.
> INACTIVE will create the constraint definition (so higher
> level languages that use it for navigation) but not enforce
> it, except in terms of dependencies - an error if you try
> to delete columns or tables referenced in the constraint.
> This is a bit harder, but, I think, not very hard.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>
>