Subject | RE: [firebird-support] Does 2.0.3.12981 version requires smaller instead or bigger index keys? ref/eDN6063215442 |
---|---|
Author | dennis |
Post date | 2007-12-12T12:05:46Z |
Database "C:\fd\prg\front\db\DB_FB.FDB"
Database header page information:
Flags 0
Checksum 12345
Generation 398322
Page size 1024
ODS version 11.0
Oldest transaction 380485
Oldest active 397416
Oldest snapshot 397416
Next transaction 398308
Bumped transaction 1
Sequence number 0
Next attachment ID 0
Implementation ID 16
Shadow count 0
Page buffers 0
Next header page 0
Database dialect 3
Creation date Mar 26, 2007 12:09:37
Attributes force write
Variable header data:
Sweep interval: 20000
*END*
Deninis
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vlad Khorsun
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:53 AM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Does 2.0.3.12981 version requires smaller
instead or bigger index keys? ref/eDN6063215442
Regards,
Vlad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Database header page information:
Flags 0
Checksum 12345
Generation 398322
Page size 1024
ODS version 11.0
Oldest transaction 380485
Oldest active 397416
Oldest snapshot 397416
Next transaction 398308
Bumped transaction 1
Sequence number 0
Next attachment ID 0
Implementation ID 16
Shadow count 0
Page buffers 0
Next header page 0
Database dialect 3
Creation date Mar 26, 2007 12:09:37
Attributes force write
Variable header data:
Sweep interval: 20000
*END*
Deninis
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vlad Khorsun
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:53 AM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Does 2.0.3.12981 version requires smaller
instead or bigger index keys? ref/eDN6063215442
> I was working with version 2.0.0.12748 and now with version 2.0.3.12981the
> follow index cannot be creatred:What is ODS and page size of your database ? (gstat -h will tell you)
>
> CREATE INDEX CODES_IDX2 ON CODES (KEY_, RES_);
>
>
>
> The error message is:
>
> This operation is not defined for system tables.
>
> unsuccessful metadata update.
>
> key size exceeds implementation restriction for index "CODES_IDX2".
>
>
>
> Key_ and res_ fields are varchar(100),
>
>
>
> Character set: DEFAULT CHARACTER SET NONE
>
>
>
> What happen? Does 2.0.3.12981 version requires smaller instead or bigger
> index keys? Where am I wrong?
Regards,
Vlad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]