Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:24:13 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Define "need".
It's not required in the CREATE TABLE.

But I agree that almost all tables should have a "primary key" constraint.
Why would one need one on a transaction history file though?
I agree that, in general, an identity column works well for a primary key.
I can bend on that. For example a table of states. Why should IN,
Indiana have an identity column as it's primary key?

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Indexed PF vs. LF performance , Alan Campin

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.