06.04.2013 1:24, Ann Harrison wrote: >> DBKEY for views is a fake, it does not exist as a standalone physical >> concept. So I ignore views in this thread, they're completely outside >> the intended semantics of this proposal. > > Perhaps the implementation has changed, but formerly the db_key of a row > returned from a join view contained the db_keys of the constituent table > rows. > True, db_keys from aggregate views are problematic, but not for simple > joined views.
Correct and it hasn't changed. I just meant that the view's DBKEY is not something separate, it simply a concatenation of the individual tables DBKEYs. You cannot select from a joined view using its combined DBKEY, you have to decode it into sub-parts and then use a particular table's DBKEY for retrieval. As long as we speak about identifying and locating *records*, IMHO it makes a lot of sense to forget about views and work with tables only. Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
