The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
I just put the debugger on an SQL query, and got a couple of indexing
recommendations that appear downright nonsensical:
Of course, as usual, "the names have been changed to protect the innocent."
Both of them on file FOOBAR
First suggestion, index FOOBAR on FOO, CORGE. (FOOBAR is already
uniquely keyed on FOO.)
Second suggestion, index FOOBAR on BAR, CORGE. (This makes a tiny bit
more sense, but only a tiny bit: there's no uniqueness constraint on
BAR, but there's already a logical non-uniquely keyed on BAR and BAZ,
and also one on BAZ and BAR, and there are only a few values of BAR
appearing in more than one record, only one with as many as 6, and none
with more than that.)
Any idea why we'd get such nonsensical suggestions?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2023 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.