IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Relational theory does not address indexes
as far as I know. Indexes are just an implementation (speed) aide. In theory one should get the same result rows from any given query regardless of whether indexes are in place or not. But, it appears an index of some kind is necessary in order to *efficiently* enforce the primary key constraint required by the theory.
________________
oop.ismad.com
New Indexes are just tables....
...with the last field being a pointer to the record with the corresponding row in the full table. If the Index has full coverage, the query optimizer can get all the data from the index and never have to look at the full table. The primary reason for efficiency is due to have all the records in near vicinity to each other and in the correct order (as opposed to having to check every record scattered throughout the storage unit).
New Re: just tables.
Unless they are clustered.
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
     Indexes and primary keys - redundant? - (tablizer) - (9)
         I can't recall every having an index on the primary key - (jbrabeck)
         As I understand it - (tuberculosis) - (1)
             It's definitely the case with Oracle. -NT - (Meerkat)
         The Primary Key is an Index. - (ChrisR)
         Conceptually no, in practice yes - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
             Relational theory does not address indexes - (tablizer) - (2)
                 Indexes are just tables.... - (ChrisR) - (1)
                     Re: just tables. - (mmoffitt)
         Check the index list. - (static)

Has anyone seen the bridge?
37 ms