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 usi
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/SEC457.html states that "there must be an
> index where the foreign key and the referenced key are listed as the
> FIRST columns." Will this restriction be lifted soon? It is incredibly
> frustrating. I don't see why they have to be indexes, and more
> importantly, I d
In the last episode (Mar 05), Daevid Vincent said:
> > I'm not sure that sentence means what you think it does. What
> > they're saying is you need to index both fields, and if you decide
> > to make that index a compound one with multiple keyparts, the
> > foreign/referenced field must be the fir
> In the last episode (Mar 05), Daevid Vincent said:
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/SEC457.html states that "there
> must be an
> > index where the foreign key and the referenced key are listed as the
> > FIRST columns." Will this restriction be lifted soon? It is
> > incredibly frustrating. I do
In the last episode (Mar 05), Daevid Vincent said:
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/SEC457.html states that "there must be an
> index where the foreign key and the referenced key are listed as the
> FIRST columns." Will this restriction be lifted soon? It is
> incredibly frustrating. I don't see why t
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/SEC457.html states that "there must be an index
where the foreign key and the referenced key are listed as the FIRST
columns." Will this restriction be lifted soon? It is incredibly
frustrating. I don't see why they have to be indexes, and more importantly,
I don't see w
