Hugh? Manually specified indexes? Those have been there for years...
-David On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be nice to have the foreign key checks as well as ways to creating indexes on non-key fields. There is a great performance increase having an index in some tables. Now I have to do in manually inside of the DB whichis fine. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:08 AM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: Entity engine, "many" relations, foreign keys Ah, wait. Note one more thing.In entity PartyContactMechPurpose, there is supposed to be a type "one"relation to PartyContactMech. Why is it missing? We could have a field like "partyContactMechFromDate", so itdoesn't clash with "fromDate". Same for "thruDate". Of course, that wouldmean we cannot easily change the "fromDate" field in PartyContactMech (unless we do EECA).As it is now, it is possible to actually get PartyContactMechPurpose topoint to a non-existentPartyContactMech. Just mix up the partyId and contactMechId such that nosuch combination exists. Advice? Or should we live without foreign key checks in such cases? Jonathon Jonathon -- Improov wrote:I found this from David Jones:Foreign keys are done for type "one" relationships, not type many. Atype"many" relationship is usually just the reverse direction of a type"one"relationship so the FK covers both. What would it mean to have a foreign key on a type "many"relationship?"Then a corresponding "one" relation will supply the foreign keyconstraint?What about a many-to-many relation? Look at entity PartyAttribute andPartyTypeAttr for example. Is that a many-to-many? Looks odd, though. Amany-to-many usually requires a separate "match-make" table.Is it correct to say that OFBiz does not do foreign key constraints withtype "many" relations? Do we have to insert an additional type "one" relation on field"attrName" in order to get the foreign key constraints checks? But can a"one" relation be created without specifying the full primary key?Looks like the type "many" relation is merely a convenient means to do aquery like "where attrName = whatever", so we can do a simplegetRelated().Jonathon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature