[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12560055#action_12560055
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
This issue started as a part of Derby-2212 b
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12560070#action_12560070
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
I am following Mike's approach ie internally
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12563119#action_12563119
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
thanks Mike for looking at the patch and det
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12563473#action_12563473
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
Thanks Mike for pointing out issues related
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12568850#action_12568850
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
Details about changes in
java/engine/org/ap
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12568879#action_12568879
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
Impact of isolation level
The records invol
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12569987#action_12569987
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
Thanks Mike for pointing out the possibility
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573032#action_12573032
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
dml019 test group by clause of unique constr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573084#action_12573084
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3330:
--
I think the upgrade handling o
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573108#action_12573108
]
Dibyendu Majumdar commented on DERBY-3330:
--
Hi,
I could be talking nonsense here
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573151#action_12573151
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3330:
--
Dibyendu wrote:
> one of the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573347#action_12573347
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3330:
--
Thanks for cleaning up the Ind
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573365#action_12573365
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
UniqueWithDuplicateNulls explains the actual
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573369#action_12573369
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
uniqueWhenNotNull attribute (in B2I and Inde
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573450#action_12573450
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
please ignore derby-3330v12.diff . It had a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573671#action_12573671
]
Anurag Shekhar commented on DERBY-3330:
---
junit.all and derbyall tests are running fin
"Anurag Shekhar (JIRA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While creating the constraint on a table with existing records
> merge short is perform to sort the keys before creating index. A
I assume you mean "merge sort is performed"?
> new merge short class will be required to sort this almost uniq
I thought from functional spec and ongoing discussion that behavior of
unique constraint on non-nullable columns would be unchanged. So this
constraint should still be backed by a unique index.
Anurag Shekhar (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassia
Unique constraint on non nullable fields still act like a unique index
(because there is no null value) but internally they are backed by non
unique indexes with uniqueWhenNotNull attribute.
anurag
Mike Matrigali wrote:
I thought from functional spec and ongoing discussion that behavior of
uni
Neighter the sql spec nor the derby manual promises this behavior
(ordering of group by
clause without order by). So I don't think this is a deviation from the
existing behavior.
anurag
Anurag shekhar wrote:
Unique constraint on non nullable fields still act like a unique index
(because there i
This is not what I thought was going to happen. For backward
compatibility (both performance, regression possibility and behavior),
why change the implementation of unique non-nullable constraints, to
use a non-unique index?
Especially at the very end of the code freeze cycle. I am ok with
mov
I will make the changes and upload a new patch.
anurag
Mike Matrigali wrote:
This is not what I thought was going to happen. For backward
compatibility (both performance, regression possibility and behavior),
why change the implementation of unique non-nullable constraints, to
use a non-unique
see discussion in DERBY-2212 for various issues related to this project
that led to the current design.
Dibyendu Majumdar (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573108#action_12
Hi Mike,
I did go through DERBY-2212 - but did not think it had the same
proposal.
However, you may be referring to the concerns you have with using
unique index to store duplicate values.
Does the recovery code use a different comparison routine compared to
the normal case?
I don't want
24 matches
Mail list logo
