I think requiring primary keys (even if they're hidden like tables
"without" them in innodb and ndb) is fine.
I think that most of the time when people think they don't want them,
they are wrong.
Monty
On Dec 1, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Brian Aker wrote:
Hi!
It crosses my mind several times a day that if we required primary
keys on tables that replication with be far less of a hack (and work
quite a bit better). Why? Because we could then target update/delete
on other machines with primary keys and just execute directly on
those keys.
Without primary keys? You have to map the rows and do a LIMIT 1 on
the queries. Really slow...
Cheers,
-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
