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
