db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Satheesh Bandaram <banda...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Derby-655] : getImportedKeys returns duplicate rows in some cases
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 20:28:35 GMT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Mamta Satoor wrote:<br>
<blockquote
 cite="midd9619e4a0605241314y1a017159h239d90b911948d74@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <div>
  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">It
seems that there is now a separation of congomerates into logical<br>
congomerates (rows in SYSCONGLOMERATES) and physical conglomerates
    <br>
(files on disk). But what you describe has the CONGLOMERATEID being the<br>
physical identifier when it seems it should be a unique identifier for<br>
the logical conglomerate. I would have thought the CONGLOMERATENUMBER
    <br>
would be the physical identifier, thus in the situation you describe I<br>
would expect two rows in SYSCONGLOMERATES with the same<br>
CONGLOMERATENUMBER but unique CONGLOMERATEIDs.</blockquote>
  <div>&nbsp;</div>
  <div>The duplicate rows do have the same CONGLOMERATENUMBER
which&nbsp;corresponds to the physical conglomerate. But the CONGLOMERATEID
which could be thought of as logical conglomerate is not unique in
SYSCONGLOMERATES. If we change the CONGLOMERATEID to be a unique key in
SYSCONGLOMERATES by changing the code in <font color="#550055">CreateIndexConstantAction
somehow</font>, then we will not have to change the metadata query in
anyways and the reference manual will not have&nbsp;to change for the
release in which the fix will go. If we decide not to backport the fix
in older Derby releases, then we should fix the reference manual for
those releases. </div>
  </div>
</blockquote>
This sounds like the right approach... I think <b>conglomerateId </b>should
be unique, though we may not be able to mark it as such internally
now.... to support upgrading 10.1 or earlier databases which may have
duplicate values.<br>
<br>
There seems to be couple of other metadata queries that also depend on
conglomerateId being unique, so it would be good to make conglomerateId
unique again.<br>
<br>
Satheesh<br>
<blockquote
 cite="midd9619e4a0605241314y1a017159h239d90b911948d74@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <div>
  <div>Thanks,</div>
  <div>Mamta</div>
  <br>
  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">Thanks,<br>
Dan.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </blockquote>
  </div>
  <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>


Mime
View raw message